◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

To understand many Mexican attitudes toward the United States and immigration, you have to go back to the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, of which most Americans have never heard. The United States attacked Mexico in a war of territorial acquisition, occupied Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona, and drove south to conquer Mexico City. It did it because it could.

The attitude of Americans who have heard of the war is usually, “Get over it.” Mexicans have not gotten over it. People get over things they have done to others more easily than they get over things others have done to them. Tell Americans to “get over” Nine-Eleven, or Jews to get over Germany.

There is in Guadalajara a large and prominent monument to Los Niños Heroes, the adolescent cadets who marched out to defend Chapultepec as the Americans conquered Mexico City, much as the VMI cadets tried to defend Virginia in the Civil War. Countless Mexican towns have a street called Niños Heroes. They remember.

The base of the monument to Los Niñoes Heroes in Guadalajara. It reads, “Died for their country.” You know, like Iwo Jima and all.

This does not make for a keen appreciation of the Exceptional Nation. Nor does memory of the conquest arouse sympathy about immigration–or, as Mexicans see it, emigration. It explains the occasionally heard phrase, “La Reconquista.”

Throw in the drumbeat from racialist sites to the effect that Mexicans are stupid, filthy, criminal, and parasitic, and Trump’s asserting that they are rapists and what all, which resonates in Mexico as Hillary’s Deplorables speech did in Middle America. And of course there was the bombardment of Veracruz, of which Americans have never heard, and Pershing’s Incursion, and Washington’s history of attacks, invasion, installation of dictators in Latin America and support for others.

For Mexico, as for most of the world, the US is not the shining city on a hill that it thinks it is. Over and over it attacks other countries and invariably is surprised when they don’t like it. Note that America and its vassals in Europe kill huge numbers of people in Muslim cities, yet express outrage when Muslims kill people in their countries.

In America, conservatives will erupt in fury on reading the foregoing. Well, bully for them. The behavior of Mexicans is determined by their history and what they think, not by what others think they ought to think.

These days, people often want a philosophical framework to justify their aggression. Among the better educated of Mexico, emigration is sometimes intellectualized by saying that flows of population have occurred all through history, Rome and such. These flows, they say, are inevitable and perhaps favored by Divine Providence. They don’t quite say, “Get over it.”

This reasoning is self-serving. If twenty million Haitians swam ashore in Veracruz, Mexicans would not regard it as a natural and inevitable flow. Note, though, that the Mexican inevitable-flow theory precisely parallels the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which held that that America’s expansion across the continent was inevitable. It was an early form of American Exceptionalism, the idea that America is special and need not follow norms of decent behavior. Now it seems that Manifest Destiny is reversible. This notion too will anger many Americans, but then, the invasion of Mexico angered many Mexicans.

American attitudes toward Latinos, chiefly contempt, do not get a rousing welcome here. Americans both north and south of the border tend to see Mexicans only as gardeners, waiters, maids and, here, a few English-speaking doctors. Typically they have no idea of the lands between the Rio Bravo and Tierra del Fuego. They have not been there, do not speak or read Spanish. Americans, increasingly losing their own intellectual tradition, are unaware that Latin America has its own rich intellectual history going back for centuries. Fortifying this blankness is the charming view that Latinos are stupid and so, obviously, cannot have an intellectual anything. This annoys Mexicans.

Latin America has in fact produced a great many writers of the first rank, not to mention philosophy, architecture, and music. Pick a few: Vargas Llosa, Garcia Marquez, Juan Rulfo, Pablo Neruda, Borges, Ortega y Gasset, Octavio Paz, Carlos Monsivais, Mario Benedetti, on and on. I didn’t know most of them either, but my wife Violeta, a Mexicana, does. All of this ties in with the literature and art of Spain, the mother country, just as ours does with that of England. There is a major civilization down here, despite the views of internet louts.

While there is much discussion of immigrants in the US, it consists mostly of ideology, of impractical hostility on the Right and moral preening on the Left. Neither seems to have much interest in knowing what it is talking about.

For example, the illegals, a source of horror, are mostly not diseased, drug-dealing rapists with drooping IQs and psychopathic murderousness. This will come as a disappointment to many. Actually, come in flavors. They are not one thing.

At the negative end are the MS 13 types, tattooed killers. These could profitably be taken up in a helicopter and allowed to come down independently. Then you have the kid brought over at age two and who now, at nineteen, speaks perfect California English and horrible Spanish and thinks he is an American, never having been to Mexico. You have the guys who come for two, three, four years, save money, and return to Mexico to buy a house for their families.

ORDER IT NOW

You have our friend Rosa, I will call her, who came over illegally after high school, worked dirt jobs, found free English lessons, went briefly on welfare, and finally worked her way up to be head of food-services at a high school. (Incidentally, it annoys her that her kids do not speak Spanish, but, she says in flawless English, this is America, what do you expect. Many immigrants favor bilingual schooling so that their children can learn Spanish.) Anyway, after a few years she went to whoever you go to, said she wanted legal residence, was told she had to pay back the welfare, did, and is now a permanent resident in line for citizenship if Trump doesn’t stop her.

Finally you have those illegals who live permanently on welfare and never learn English. When Rosa speaks of them, she sounds like Breitbart News: “I work. I pay taxes. Who do these damned….”

Now permit me once more to infuriate conservatives. It is a service. It will keep their blood flowing briskly: Consider Eduardo and Maria, Salvadorans living in San Salvador in a dirt-floored cinderblock hut. They have little money, not because they are stupid or lazy but because there are no jobs. Their two kids cry at night because they are hungry. Their only hope, they decide, is for Eduardo to try to get to the US, a ballsy and dangerous idea, send money back, and try to figure out how to get Maria and the kids into the US.

So he and Maria scrimp and do without–more without–and lean on relatives to get the money for a pollero to get him across the US border should he get that far. Eduardo sets off hitchhiking, which he has never done, up Central America to the Mexican border where the police or los maras are likely to beat and rob him. Mexico enforces its immigration laws more vigorously than does the US. He rides the Train of Death, well named, to the US frontier, where he doesn’t know anybody or anything and, if he is not robbed, finds himself in a country whose language he does not speak. Somehow he gets to Kentucky, picks tobacco, and sends money back.

It is not an undertaking for someone who has feathers for balls.

Yes, it is illegal. No, it is not good for the United States. Yes, immigration should be stopped. But–if you were Eduardo, which would matter more to you, your wife and children, or some law in a remote country where, in any event, a lot of people want you to come and work? What would you do? Would it not be irresponsible not to do it?

I will now go into hiding.

Request to readers: I would appreciate being in touch with someone familiar with industry in Mexico, especially robotics, engineering, and aerospace. I do not need to quote anyone by name, but would like the information, and do not now have press credentials, so cannot just call and ask. [email protected] Please put the letters pdq anywhere in the subject line to avoid autodeletion. Thanks.

There is something fundamentally wrong with Hispanic culture south of the border, which motivates millions of Hispanics to trek to El Norte to escape that culture. The real question when it comes to Hispanic immigration to the United States is, "When are Latins (Argentina to Mexico ... and including Brazil) going to overthrown their Iberian oppressors who continue to economically exploit them in what charitably may be described as neo-colonialism."

As for the American annexation of the southwest, a comment allegedly made by a Mexican politician: "Why did you let the rest of us stay down here to rot?"

"Sorry about that!"

As historians have often noted, the Spanish and Portuguese came to what is now Latin America to exploit the local populations and get rich by any means possible. Most did not bring their families. The British, on the other hand, came to North America with their families to create a new life for themselves and their families ... exploitation vs. settlement. As a generalization, Latin America retains this exploitive culture, which accounts for the lawlessness, corruption, violence, and poverty typical of Latin American countries.

Put another way, the United States was primarily settled by people who brought their high trust, beyond-kin altruistic culture with them (at least until the current wave of immigration). Latin America is typified by low trust, clan- and family-based societies with predictable results.

As a harbinger of things to come, the US State Department recently put 23 of the 31 states in Mexico on travel notices due to violence. This is up from 14 states on travel notices in March 2017.

A note for Latin American immigrants: "If you must come, please leave your Latin American cultures at home."

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Fred, I see you are again confused by a blending of legality and sentiment. We are agreed the M-A War was a crime. California must be returned immediately. Hard working residents of latin nations are obliged to hang the elites who keep them in poverty; not flee here. Manifest destiny is history written by the victor. No invader is entitled to that term until he has prevailed. Being sympathetic to the “deserving” I welcome any deserving immigrant if a corresponding “undeserving” US citizen is ejected upon the deserving’s arrival. Fred gets to go first.

A great deal of good in what you say, Fred. However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless and in places like California there were already more norteamericanos than Mexicans and the Mexicans there were not at all happy with Mexico City. The Mexicans let Americans into Texas because they could deal with the Comanches which Mexicans had been unable to do for several centuries. And during the conflict before and after the war the Mexicans did not exactly behave like Boy Scouts—massacres, banditry, etc.

However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless

Yes, I don't think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America "stole" the lands, they really weren't much more than empty desert...

While Mr. Reed excoriates the historical ignorance of Americans vis-a-vis Mexico., he relies on that ignorance to make his arguments. At the inception of the Mexican-American war, most foreign experts thought the US was going to be thoroughly thrashed. Mexico had a large, well-equipped, experienced, and supposedly well led army. When hostilities commenced the US army was small, ill-equipped, untried, and didn't have much of a record of military successes. The War was hardly just a consequence of US belligerence. Borders were in dispute and by US standards Mexico had made some moves that amounted to an invasion. Ultimately, it was the US David that beat the Mexican Goliath. The coward Santa Ana once again sold out his country to save his skin and the rest as they say is history.

Reed mentions the Pershing incursion but neglects to mention that it was in response to a series of cross border raids by Pancho Villa and massacres of American men, women, and children. The Mexican President, Caranza, infuriated Wilson by his refusal to do anything about Villa. Caranza's excuse was that the on-going race war in Mexico, which Mexicans now refer to a s a revolution, tied his hands. But a country that cannot control its borders in both directions can hardly complain when another country steps in to mend the deficit.

Throw in the drumbeat from racialist sites to the effect that Mexicans are stupid, filthy, criminal, and parasitic, and Trump’s asserting that they are rapists…Latin America has in fact produced a great many writers of the first rank, not to mention philosophy, architecture, and music.

LOL

Hey Ron, I saved you 60 seconds; this one’s even had a menstrual flow, already…

How many rapes and gang-rapes have been committed by Mexicans -illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and citizens- over the last 50 years, the last decade, this year alone? And virtually all of the rapists are Mestizos and pure Amerindians. To say nothing of murders and aggravated assaults, gang-shootings, acts of torture, armed robberies, and other mala in se crimes. Yet Fred joins the left and the likes of McCain and Graham and such in accusing Trump of calling all or most illegal aliens "rapists," including the women apparently.

Conversely, virtually all the "writers of the first rank," philosophers, etc., are of pure Spanish descent. And Fred forgot to mention Carlos Fuentes.

A great deal of good in what you say, Fred. However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless and in places like California there were already more norteamericanos than Mexicans and the Mexicans there were not at all happy with Mexico City. The Mexicans let Americans into Texas because they could deal with the Comanches which Mexicans had been unable to do for several centuries. And during the conflict before and after the war the Mexicans did not exactly behave like Boy Scouts---massacres, banditry, etc.

“that territory taken over in the Mexican War was … in places like California there were already more norteamericanos than Mexicans”: that argument is going to come back and bite you on the bum.

There is a major civilization down here, despite the views of internet louts.
…
the Mexican border where the police or los maras are likely to beat and rob him.

I like Mexicans and I like Mexico, but by insisting on massive and transformational demographic cataclysms, you’re going to cause strife. Fred seems to be an apologist for that strife for reasons of personal expedience.

no to wars for the fun and profit of rich pigs

no to massive and transformational revenge movements that are motivated by racial hate and are going to be responded to with racial hate. It can not be otherwise, and I would counsel against it.

poor third world nations need birth control, not excuses for rampant criminality and war-like, belligerent rhetoric intended to make the ‘evil people’ pay for what “they” have done.

A great deal of good in what you say, Fred. However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless and in places like California there were already more norteamericanos than Mexicans and the Mexicans there were not at all happy with Mexico City. The Mexicans let Americans into Texas because they could deal with the Comanches which Mexicans had been unable to do for several centuries. And during the conflict before and after the war the Mexicans did not exactly behave like Boy Scouts---massacres, banditry, etc.

However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless

Yes, I don’t think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America “stole” the lands, they really weren’t much more than empty desert…

So while it might be fair to say that America “stole” the lands, they really weren’t much more than empty desert…

Ron,

Question: suppose Canada had "stolen" Minnesota at the same time. Since there were no more than 6,000 "Americans" people living there at the time, do you really think Americans today would be indifferent to this? ("We've really got no cause to complain, after all it was only unpopulated forest land")

First of all, one of the reasons the population density was so diminished is because all of the natives were wiped out from disease and warfare. Low population density tends to happen when everyone is killed.

Second, density is relative. While you may think 7k people in a territory is a small amount, imagine what the Chinese think when they see sparsely populated Nebrasca.
Siberia does not have near as many people as China or India. That is no right to invade and steal someone's land.

Mexico was compensated for the land it lost ($15 M in 1850, about $7 BN today after inflation), so "stolen" might not be quite the proper word. That was probably close to fair market value for unimproved, mostly uninhabited land. The fact that Mexico was compensated at all is remarkable, because for much of history, I think the idea of compensating the loser is comparatively rare. I don't think Stalin and Hitler paid the Poles when they divvied up Poland in 1939.

Anyway, the simple fact that the immigration issue is so emotional on both sides suggests that maybe there are too many immigrants? If the numbers were not so large, the stakes would not be as high and the issue could be rationally debated like any other. No one flips out when discussing the Energy Department's budget after all.

Yes, I don’t think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America “stole” the lands, they really weren’t much more than empty desert…

Sorry, but you set me off. Here is an excerpt from an unpublished blog of mine.

The Mexican flag flew when the Yanquis came, but California was not part of Mexico. Mexicans did not trust Californians. Perhaps the news was just slow in coming, but California still remained loyal to Spain long after the Mexican revolution of 1812. Californians had money for imported wines and shoes, but they had no gun powder.

In 1818 pirates from Buenos Aires attacked Monterey. These pirates raised the flag of Argentina. After they sacked and burned the town, they went home. Californians reacted by moving inland. They left the coastal areas wild and deserted to convince pirates that there was nothing worth taking.

California began to fly the flag of Mexico in 1822. In 1842, pirates from New England raided Monterey. They raised the flag of the United States. Instead of pillaging, they apologized and went home.

In 1846 more Yanqui pirates came. Instead of going home, they occupied all our harbors. "The Navy wanted a port on the west coast," was the way my father explained it.

Then, as now, there were many different cultures. There were Spanish. There were Portuguese. There were Chinese. There were Russians. There were Swiss and Argentines. There were Tory refugees from the war of 1812. There were black men who lived here in freedom. John Brown's widow followed the underground railroad to California, and she is buried here.

The largest group of people were the aboriginal inhabitants. South of San Francisco these people were settled by the Spanish, and the Spanish language replaced the gaggle of tongues which preceded it. Us Anglos alternately call them Mexican, Hispanic, or Latino but they do not fit the categories we make for them. They are not from Mexico nor are they from Spain. They are Spanish-speaking descendants of various aboriginal peoples and a few European settlers. In truth, they are Californians.

In the northern and eastern areas the first Europeans were not from Spain. There were Russians at Fort Ross, British at Eureka, Italian Swiss at ASTI, Italians at Williams, and German speakers in the areas around Sutter's fort at what is now Sacramento. Although there was no systematic effort to teach them, Indians in each of those areas learned the language of the local settlers.

The new Yanqui conquistadores were not immediately acclaimed. People fought back all over Alta California. When they had gunpowder, they fought with guns. Mostly they fought with spears, swords, and arrows. They fought bravely, and they won battles. The largest revolt was in Los Angeles, where the Pueblo was retaken and held for three months. Californians were convinced to put down their arms by the promise of a bicultural state which respected traditional culture and property rights. This is why our constitution and laws are written in both Spanish and English.

On November 13, 1849 selected areas under US control had a chance to vote for the new constitution. A total of 12,061 votes were cast for union, and 811 votes were cast against it.

The Yankee census had run to fifteen thousand. This number was actually an estimate made by the US Navy expedition of 1841. This expedition avoided concentrations of Indians, and it never went farther south than San Jose. They note deserted and ruined buildings, but they do not seem to realize that Californians deliberately avoided this large party of armed men.

Eleven years earlier, a Mexican census counted 23,476 Spanish speaking soldiers and men in the presidios, missions and ranchos. At that time, most Californians did not speak Spanish, even in the narrow coastal region canvassed by the Mexicans. This strip stretched only to the north side of the San Francisco Bay. The State of California is roughly eight times larger.

In the first official census of 1850, the population of California jumped to 92,597. This was more than six times the population upon which the constitution of 1849 was based. This larger census still omits population centers in San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Jose and the entire east bay. The census data for these major California cities is officially recorded as being lost. Other areas in the south continued to resist the new government, while vast inland areas were completely unorganized until 1852.

In my blog I have facsimiles of woodcuts, maps and the Mexican census. On particularly telling drawing is a detailed camera obscura drawing from an official US Navy expedition (From the Columbia River to the Sacramento, published 1841). The drawing is labeled "Indians Gambling", but Californians should recognize it as three Chinese tourists casting the I-Ching. The location is now known as Marysville where a Chinese temple the God of the (now named American) River is still preserved.

Californians are not as liberal as many of the readers here seem to think. We are just conservative to a different history. Would you be game enough to publish my blog?

I am sorry, but setup of this article is complete revisionist history. It is using 20/20 hindsight and the lopsided power between Mexico and the US today. To make a point that does not match the historical record.

It does not consider what were the “Facts on the Ground” in 1845/1846 actually were. They US had a Peacetime “authorized” army of 10,000. Mexico had almost 20,000 active duty and over 10,000 active Militia. Those forces would of been even larger and better equipped if President Farias of Mexico had not been intentionally undermining the army. Santa Anna was still viewed as the best military mind in the West even after losing to Texas. The Northern Army of Mexico (over 5000 regular and veteran troops) was lead by Mariano Arista, a former Spanish Army officer (so European trained). Nearly all the European powers had Officers embedded in the Mexican army during the war, because they thought Mexico was going to mop the floor with the U.S. who was completely dependent on “volunteers” not active duty regulars like Mexico.

Remember Polk offered to buy the disputed land from Mexico first, but Farias refused. Then the Northern Army of Mexico attacked a U.S. output killing dozens and taking prisoners. It was only after this that the US declared war. Santa Anna was then allowed to return, he was actually in political exile. However, he was dealing with the US under the table regarding selling the disputed land to the U.S. at a reasonable price. However, once Santa Anna got back in power he decided full war was the better option (he was going to put on a “show” then seek a quick peace) because he thought he would win and get Texas back. Otherwise he would of taken the land sale (which was only for the disputed lands in todays Texas and Oklahoma not all of the modern day Southwest). Then consolidate his power by dealing with the constant rebellions in the South of Mexico and crushing the Liberals (Santa Anna political opponents).

I've also read that the so-called attack across the border that supposedly started the war, was actually a historic example of 'fake news' being used to start a war by the yellow press of the day. Polk wanted a war, and seized on 'fake news' to start one, in the same way the Trump wants a war in Syria and seized on 'fake news' blaming Assad for jihadist storing chem weapons to launch missile strikes.

I'd have to search for a link, because this is not the Deep State/CNN approved version. But its one that I've read before.

The Liefare-Warfare State
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/thomas-dilorenzo/the-liefare-warfare-state/

.... LYING AMERICANS INTO WAR
As this is being written the U.S. government is spreading the tall tale that the Syrian government allegedly killed some 100 of its own citizens with poison gas. .....

The Mexican-American War
When James K. Polk became president in 1845 he announced to his cabinet that one of his chief objectives was to acquire California, which was then a part of Mexico. As he wrote in his diary (online as “The Diary of James K. Polk”), “I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”...
..... None other than Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs that, as a young soldier serving under the command of General Zachary Taylor during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, he understood that he had been sent there to provoke a fight:
“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive [President Polk] could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”....

Anatomy Of A False Flag
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/anatomy-of-false-flag.html
False flags are an American tradition. They go way back.....

Great post!An excellent history of the Mexican-American War and other events of that time is still Bernard DeVoto's The Year of Decision: 1846. It's a pre-PC, solidly researched and scholarly, highly readable and entertaining history. That it has been allowed to drop out of copyright says a lot about the era we live in. Highly recommended!

So called "Mexicans" in the region were all offered US citizenship after the war.

USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in.

Most ‘Mexicans’ are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande. Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain). See photo of Mexican Congress.

Much of the SW, though curiously claimed by Mexico, was controlled by either the Comanche or the Apache.

Mexico lost Texas because Santa Anna made himself a dictator and caused revolts all around Mexico.

The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.The Mexican-American War was provoked by Mexico, which refused to recognize the independence and annexation of Texas, even though the rest of the world and the vast majority of Texans were English speakers who supported joining the USA.Not only did it provoke the war generally, it fired the first shots, killing 11 of 70 American in a surprise attack with 2000 Mexican soldiers.

Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it's Mexico they all want to leave.

I believe Fred is deliberately misquoting the President’s statement about Mexicans. Trump said that some of them are rapists which is true. Some of every tribe are. Is this Fred’s Fake News or what?

I am also always struck as to why these valiant Mexicans, Hondurans or whatever can never seem to manage a country where their own citizens want to stay. All these places are the same. Nobody really wants to go there unless they have pensions or such and can live cheaper than at home. And, generally, they live in expat, tribal communities just as Fred does. He couldn’t make it in the USA so he went to Mexico and went native from whence he now pontificates to those of us who stayed home.

Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras - and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of "our" mainstream media protects Americans from knowing.

London Editor Proposes British Honduras Be Turned into Jewish State
http://www.jta.org/1939/01/08/archive/london-editor-proposes-british-honduras-be-turned-into-jewish-state
A suggestion that British Honduras be transformed into a Jewish State under the joint protection of Great Britain and the United States was made today by W.E. Simnett, editor of the Crown Colonist, in a letter published by the Spectator, independent political and literary periodical.
Mr. Simnett would transfer administration of the colony to responsible Jewish authorities. He pointed out that British Honduras, in Central America, is the size of Palestine and is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mostly natives....

Palestine Arabs Living in Honduras Are Threatened with Deportation
http://www.jta.org/1926/10/17/archive/palestine-arabs-living-in-honduras-are-threatened-with-deportation

The Jewish families that run Honduras
https://dagobertobellucci.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/the-jewish-families-that-run-honduras/

THE ISRAELI CONNECTION TO THE HONDURAN COUP
https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/the-israeli-connection-to-the-honduran-coup/

Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_criminal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/

Before Her Murder, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Criticism
The presidential candidate has ignored criticism of her role in enabling the consolidation of the Honduran coup.
http://www.thenation.com/article/chronicle-of-a-honduran-assassination-foretold/

Honduras and Israel: A New Special Relationship
Just as it serviced murderous regimes in Central America in the 1980s, Israel will now be exporting forms of repression to Honduras' abusive government.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Honduras-and-Israel-A-New-Special-Relationship-20160825-0008.html#comsup

And, of course, the sect is now fully into exploiting the success of their coup in Honduras.
Archaeology, Biology, Appropriation, and Empire in Honduras
http://www.unz.com/plee/archaeology-biology-appropriation-and-empire-in-honduras/

The "history" is the same in much of Central America. "Our" media goes to great lengths to cover up who produced the millions of refugees in the US from Central America.

How Neocons Destabilized Europe
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/07/how-neocons-destabilized-europe/
..... When I first encountered the neocons in the 1980s, they had been given Central America to play with. President Ronald Reagan had credentialed many of them, bringing into the U.S. government neocon luminaries such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan. But Reagan mostly kept them out of the big-power realms: the Mideast and Europe.

Those strategic areas went to the “adults,” people like James Baker, George Shultz, Philip Habib and Brent Scowcroft. The poor Central Americans, as they tried to shed generations of repression and backwardness imposed by brutal right-wing oligarchies, faced U.S. neocon ideologues who unleashed death squads and even genocide against peasants, students and workers.

The result not surprisingly was a flood of refugees, especially from El Salvador and Guatemala, northward to the United States. The neocon “success” in the 1980s, crushing progressive social movements and reinforcing the oligarchic controls, left most countries of Central America in the grip of corrupt regimes and crime syndicates, periodically driving more waves of what Reagan called “feet people” through Mexico to the southern U.S. border......

A great deal of good in what you say, Fred. However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless and in places like California there were already more norteamericanos than Mexicans and the Mexicans there were not at all happy with Mexico City. The Mexicans let Americans into Texas because they could deal with the Comanches which Mexicans had been unable to do for several centuries. And during the conflict before and after the war the Mexicans did not exactly behave like Boy Scouts---massacres, banditry, etc.

Fred should read the life and times of Kit Carson which very much backs up the remarks of
Clyde Wilson.

There's a US Army base in Colorado named after Kit Carson, where I attended Mass yesterday at the nondenominational chapel on Nelson. The priest was from Africa, and I hope immigrants like him will help preserve our Christian civilization.

However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless

Yes, I don't think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America "stole" the lands, they really weren't much more than empty desert...

So while it might be fair to say that America “stole” the lands, they really weren’t much more than empty desert…

Ron,

Question: suppose Canada had “stolen” Minnesota at the same time. Since there were no more than 6,000 “Americans” people living there at the time, do you really think Americans today would be indifferent to this? (“We’ve really got no cause to complain, after all it was only unpopulated forest land”)

"Question: suppose Canada had “stolen” Minnesota at the same time. Since there were no more than 6,000 “Americans” people living there at the time, do you really think Americans today would be indifferent to this?"

I love it when Tokyo Rose barks at us from his biker bar in Lake Chapala.

This line sticks out for me: You have the guys who come for two, three, four years, save money, and return to Mexico to buy a house for their families.

Yup. Like the Jalisco Boys. Fred should really read “Dreamland” before he embarrasses himself any further. The Jalisco Boys came here for one reason, to set up a Domino’s-style heroin delivery service. They were incredibly successful. They got thousands of people hooked on cheap black tar heroin, killed a lot of them, and diligently pocketed the money to return home so they could show off their fancy duds and bigger houses to the people who had looked down on them as ranchero nobodies.

In other words, as per Jeb Bush, they were not coming here as an “act of love.” Nor were they redressing old military setbacks. They were just showing us that a wall is vital.

One of the biggest problems facing human kind is population growth. That’s the root of the ‘immigration’ problem.

Philosophically, I believe in Freedom. And a key freedom is being able to live where one wants to live. I grew up in Cold War 1.0 propaganda, and this was often sited as one of the great evils of the Soviet Union. The evil state would tell people where they were allowed to live.

When I studied economics at school, we were taught there were three inputs to industry. Capital was of course one, and its become dominant since my school days. Raw Materials were the second. Labor was the third.

Today, we are told that Capital and Raw Materials have to be able to cross any national border, irrespective of whether the people there thing its a good idea. But its become verbotten for people to be free to cross borders. Somehow, that’s not right.

With the elites able to manipulate Capital and flows of Raw Material and Goods, they can crash and destroy any economy they want. And we’ve seen the bankers try to use Capital to crush countries that dare to be independent of the bankers desires. The result ends up being that while the economy of a country can be destroy, the people are told that they have to remain there.

On the other hand, it makes sense for a country to look at what resources it has available. Does it have the housing to accept more people? Does it have the jobs to accept more people? Does it have the resources to provide the assistence that new people arriving are almost certain to need? If the answer to these questions are no, then its right and humane for the country to say that it is temporarily restricting immigration.

But, at its root, the real cause of these problems is population growth. If the population of humans on earth keeps growing, the it will eventually overstretch the resources available. Which means increasingly life is going to suck more and more, and that more and more people are going to want to go where life doesn’t suck so badly.

At some point, the human race needs to get its population problem under control. If it doesn’t, then the population is going to overshoot the available resources and a great tragedy is going to occur. If it does get population contained within the resources available, then we can celebrate freedom and be able to accomodate people free to live where they want to live.

The population of the United States and the world has exploded in my lifetime. In the 1930s the population of the US was 130 mission and now over 330 million. The world population was 2 billion and now over 7 billion. Many more poor than rich. Something will have to give as Cayman suggests.

I am sorry, but setup of this article is complete revisionist history. It is using 20/20 hindsight and the lopsided power between Mexico and the US today. To make a point that does not match the historical record.

It does not consider what were the "Facts on the Ground" in 1845/1846 actually were. They US had a Peacetime "authorized" army of 10,000. Mexico had almost 20,000 active duty and over 10,000 active Militia. Those forces would of been even larger and better equipped if President Farias of Mexico had not been intentionally undermining the army. Santa Anna was still viewed as the best military mind in the West even after losing to Texas. The Northern Army of Mexico (over 5000 regular and veteran troops) was lead by Mariano Arista, a former Spanish Army officer (so European trained). Nearly all the European powers had Officers embedded in the Mexican army during the war, because they thought Mexico was going to mop the floor with the U.S. who was completely dependent on "volunteers" not active duty regulars like Mexico.

Remember Polk offered to buy the disputed land from Mexico first, but Farias refused. Then the Northern Army of Mexico attacked a U.S. output killing dozens and taking prisoners. It was only after this that the US declared war. Santa Anna was then allowed to return, he was actually in political exile. However, he was dealing with the US under the table regarding selling the disputed land to the U.S. at a reasonable price. However, once Santa Anna got back in power he decided full war was the better option (he was going to put on a "show" then seek a quick peace) because he thought he would win and get Texas back. Otherwise he would of taken the land sale (which was only for the disputed lands in todays Texas and Oklahoma not all of the modern day Southwest). Then consolidate his power by dealing with the constant rebellions in the South of Mexico and crushing the Liberals (Santa Anna political opponents).

I’ve also read that the so-called attack across the border that supposedly started the war, was actually a historic example of ‘fake news’ being used to start a war by the yellow press of the day. Polk wanted a war, and seized on ‘fake news’ to start one, in the same way the Trump wants a war in Syria and seized on ‘fake news’ blaming Assad for jihadist storing chem weapons to launch missile strikes.

I’d have to search for a link, because this is not the Deep State/CNN approved version. But its one that I’ve read before.

All Mexicans know the legacy Spanish “Castilians” harm Mexico to this day far more than Norte-Americans ever did. They were the slave traders who now appear on our TV to spin their lies. They demand to continue to offload their unwanted economic refugees on the USA.

Actually the Spanish monarchy banned slavery in the New World in 1508 (Batolomeo de las Casas) and reinforced that ban with laws about the rights of indigenous peoples in 1542. 90+% of the slave trading was financed/carried out by the jews of the British, Dutch and Portuguese homeland and colonies. More and more evidence of this emerges continuously.

When Mexico got its independence from Spain, the Mexicans kept the ban on slavery. There are those who say the invasion of Texas by Americans (remember the Alamo - 1836) was mostly about reversing the latino ban on slavery to set up slave cotton plantations for the textile factories of the "city of london" in Britain.

.... José Ortega y Gasset was born 9 May 1883 in Madrid. His father was director of the newspaper El Imparcial, which belonged to the family of his mother, Dolores Gasset. The family was definitively of Spain's end-of-the-century liberal and educated bourgeoisie. The liberal tradition and journalistic engagement of his family had a profound influence in Ortega y Gasset's activism in politics.

Ortega was first schooled by the Jesuit priests of San Estanislao in Miraflores del Palo, Málaga (1891–1897). He attended the University of Deusto, Bilbao (1897–98) and the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at the Central University of Madrid (now Complutense University of Madrid) (1898–1904), receiving a doctorate in Philosophy. From 1905 to 1907, he continued his studies in Germany at Leipzig, Nuremberg, Cologne, Berlin and, above all Marburg. At Marburg, he was influenced by the neo-Kantianism of Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp, among others.....

.... Leaving Spain at the outbreak of the Civil War, he spent years of exile in Buenos Aires, Argentina until moving back to Europe in 1942.[5] He settled in Portugal by mid-1945 and slowly began to make short visits to Spain. In 1948 he returned to Madrid, where he founded the Institute of Humanities, at which he lectured.[7]

I like Mexicans a great deal and live in a border town where the majority are Mexican.

I agree with a lot of what Fred says here, but one thing to keep in mind is the hypocrisy I see a lot from Mexicans.

Mexicans don’t like being called dirty, rapists, low iq, etc. But they do the exact same thing to the Haitians that immigrated to Mexico. Keep in mind that some 80% of women from central America that cross into Mexico end up getting raped my Mexicans. So Americans absolutely treat immigrants better than Mexicans do.

Also, when it comes to racism, who are Mexicans to talk? Mexicans are absolutely as racist if not more racist than any other country. Stereotypes are a huge part of their society.

So yeah, Americans should ease up a little bit on the Mexicans. But let’s not let Mexicans off the hook either.

100% agreed. My wife was brought here illegally as a 2 year old from Mexico. Her mother hates Regan & all of us conservatives, but then states the truth " she would rather deal with American immigration than Mexican".

However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless

Yes, I don't think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America "stole" the lands, they really weren't much more than empty desert...

Surprised to see such an ignorant statement from Unz.

First of all, one of the reasons the population density was so diminished is because all of the natives were wiped out from disease and warfare. Low population density tends to happen when everyone is killed.

Second, density is relative. While you may think 7k people in a territory is a small amount, imagine what the Chinese think when they see sparsely populated Nebrasca.
Siberia does not have near as many people as China or India. That is no right to invade and steal someone’s land.

The Spanish-speakers were NOT the "natives"! They were invaders! What an outrageous statement. The native inhabitants whose lands the Spanish/Mexicans invaded spoke Hokan, Uto-Aztecan, Tanoan, Keresan, Kiowa-Tanoan, Penutian, and Athabaskan.
The Spanish/Mexicans invaded others' lands and were as vicious and cruel as any conquerors in history. Those they conquered fought back, even the agricultural Pueblo peoples. Haven't you heard of Popé's Rebellion?
And of course the plains Indians, in particular the Comanche, gave back better than they got in violence and destruction. If it wasn't for the United States Army and the Texas Rangers, Mexico from Durango north would have been an uninhabitable wasteland.

Except that the southwest had been very sparsely populated since well before Europeans arrived there. Very few were "killed". 7k people in an area that vast would have been an exceedingly small population.

Fred’s article could be retitled “Why Americans should be Wary of Mexican Irredentism and Severly Limit the Number of Mexicans, and the Activities of the Mexican Government in the (still-existing, but possibly not much longer) United States.” Okay, it’s a long title, but it fits.

That's the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we'd all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border.

Fundamentally, it's the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms. In Central America, the cynical elites want to spirit them north to go be someone else's problem. Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions. This ends badly.

I believe Fred is deliberately misquoting the President's statement about Mexicans. Trump said that some of them are rapists which is true. Some of every tribe are. Is this Fred's Fake News or what?

I am also always struck as to why these valiant Mexicans, Hondurans or whatever can never seem to manage a country where their own citizens want to stay. All these places are the same. Nobody really wants to go there unless they have pensions or such and can live cheaper than at home. And, generally, they live in expat, tribal communities just as Fred does. He couldn't make it in the USA so he went to Mexico and went native from whence he now pontificates to those of us who stayed home.

He's a fraud, occasionally entertaining, but a fraud nonetheless.

Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras – and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of “our” mainstream media protects Americans from knowing.

A suggestion that British Honduras be transformed into a Jewish State under the joint protection of Great Britain and the United States was made today by W.E. Simnett, editor of the Crown Colonist, in a letter published by the Spectator, independent political and literary periodical.
Mr. Simnett would transfer administration of the colony to responsible Jewish authorities. He pointed out that British Honduras, in Central America, is the size of Palestine and is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mostly natives….

….. When I first encountered the neocons in the 1980s, they had been given Central America to play with. President Ronald Reagan had credentialed many of them, bringing into the U.S. government neocon luminaries such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan. But Reagan mostly kept them out of the big-power realms: the Mideast and Europe.

Those strategic areas went to the “adults,” people like James Baker, George Shultz, Philip Habib and Brent Scowcroft. The poor Central Americans, as they tried to shed generations of repression and backwardness imposed by brutal right-wing oligarchies, faced U.S. neocon ideologues who unleashed death squads and even genocide against peasants, students and workers.

The result not surprisingly was a flood of refugees, especially from El Salvador and Guatemala, northward to the United States. The neocon “success” in the 1980s, crushing progressive social movements and reinforcing the oligarchic controls, left most countries of Central America in the grip of corrupt regimes and crime syndicates, periodically driving more waves of what Reagan called “feet people” through Mexico to the southern U.S. border……

Speaking of your favorite subject, you have yet to prove this specific claim–“Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.”

Recall in a source you provided that Dutch Jews reportedly controlled 17% of the Caribbean trade. Was it the slave trade or non-slave trade? It doesn't specify. Regardless, there is no reference to the 90% statistic YOU allege.

Willie F. Page, professor of African American Studies at Brooklyn College, noted that in Dutch Brazil, the Jews operated less than 6% of the plantations.

Seymour Drescher remarked in Immigrants And Minorities (July 1993) that Jews’ investment share in the Dutch West India Company “amounted to only 0.5 percent of the company’s capital”. Dutch historians Pieter Emmer and Johanes Postma have argued that “Jews had a very limited and subordinate roles even at the height of the Dutch slave trade in the 17th century.”

Are you going to retract your statement, or are you going to keep peddling Joo sophistry in hopes of not getting caught?

Fred's article could be retitled "Why Americans should be Wary of Mexican Irredentism and Severly Limit the Number of Mexicans, and the Activities of the Mexican Government in the (still-existing, but possibly not much longer) United States." Okay, it's a long title, but it fits.

That’s the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we’d all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border.

Fundamentally, it’s the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms. In Central America, the cynical elites want to spirit them north to go be someone else’s problem. Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions. This ends badly.

Israeli intelligence agents guarding Martinelli
http://www.newsroompanama.com/news/panama/israeli-intelligence-agents-guarding-martinelli
Israel’ exports to Latin America now include intelligence operators and security guards and Panama has the biggest contingent according to Panama America..... President Ricardo Martinelli is now surrounded by members of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency, say police sources.

Panama and Israel: A special relationship
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/201212384442772843.html

Been going on for a long time. One should remember that the criminal vote for the partition of Palestine by the UN in 1947 (in contravention of its own charter) to create Israel obtained a majority because many Central American countries (at the time satrapies of US companies like United Fruit) voted in favor. Several of those countries then fired their UN representatives for selling their vote to the zionists.

Thank you for your comment. I find it incredible that the U.S. seems on the brink of breaking diplomatic relations with Russia, a country of 143 million, most of whose population is almost on the other side of the world, and with which the United States has never fought a war (I exclude obviously, the Cold War, but that was with the USSR), and with which it has no obvious conflict. Yet it ignores the consular and other governmental activities of Mexico, a counry of 127 million, with a long common border, with historical claims on large portions of U.S. territory, significant enough that WWI Germany offered to support them in return for a Mexican declaration of war on the United States. Add to that a large number of dual-nationals and "Americans" who cheer for Mexican soccer teams and probably feel more Mexican than American. As you say, this will not end well.

"That’s the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we’d all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border."

Replace "manifest destiny" with "colonization", and you would be accurate.

"Fundamentally, it’s the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms."

I didn't realize that immigrants seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be characterized as possessing "different behavioral norms".

"Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions."

You mean our budding entrepreneurs who warmly embrace the basic capitalistic desire to maximize their profits and minimize their costs. I am certain that your upper class lifestyle as a lawyer, with professional wife in tow, has greatly benefitted from such transactions.

All Mexicans know the legacy Spanish "Castilians" harm Mexico to this day far more than Norte-Americans ever did. They were the slave traders who now appear on our TV to spin their lies. They demand to continue to offload their unwanted economic refugees on the USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qx2pK6pYGU

Actually the Spanish monarchy banned slavery in the New World in 1508 (Batolomeo de las Casas) and reinforced that ban with laws about the rights of indigenous peoples in 1542. 90+% of the slave trading was financed/carried out by the jews of the British, Dutch and Portuguese homeland and colonies. More and more evidence of this emerges continuously.

When Mexico got its independence from Spain, the Mexicans kept the ban on slavery. There are those who say the invasion of Texas by Americans (remember the Alamo – 1836) was mostly about reversing the latino ban on slavery to set up slave cotton plantations for the textile factories of the “city of london” in Britain.

You are absolutely correct. Slavery was illegal in Mexico. In 1829 Mexico passed a stronger anti slavery law. The Mexicans, like the territories of Ohio, Indianna, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota knew that slave owners would move in with black "servants" and then go to court to make them slaves, just as happened in the early colonies. California kept a strict eye on black "servants" and their "employers", making them sign strict employment contracts. The contracts specified total lack of obligation for the blacks when the contracts were up.

That's why the slave states didn't want to annex Mexico. It would bring in a huge non slave territory.

That's the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we'd all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border.

Fundamentally, it's the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms. In Central America, the cynical elites want to spirit them north to go be someone else's problem. Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions. This ends badly.

Perhaps because the “elite” that runs both the US and many Central American countries is from the same sect?

Israel’ exports to Latin America now include intelligence operators and security guards and Panama has the biggest contingent according to Panama America….. President Ricardo Martinelli is now surrounded by members of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency, say police sources.

Been going on for a long time. One should remember that the criminal vote for the partition of Palestine by the UN in 1947 (in contravention of its own charter) to create Israel obtained a majority because many Central American countries (at the time satrapies of US companies like United Fruit) voted in favor. Several of those countries then fired their UN representatives for selling their vote to the zionists.

…. José Ortega y Gasset was born 9 May 1883 in Madrid. His father was director of the newspaper El Imparcial, which belonged to the family of his mother, Dolores Gasset. The family was definitively of Spain’s end-of-the-century liberal and educated bourgeoisie. The liberal tradition and journalistic engagement of his family had a profound influence in Ortega y Gasset’s activism in politics.

Ortega was first schooled by the Jesuit priests of San Estanislao in Miraflores del Palo, Málaga (1891–1897). He attended the University of Deusto, Bilbao (1897–98) and the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at the Central University of Madrid (now Complutense University of Madrid) (1898–1904), receiving a doctorate in Philosophy. From 1905 to 1907, he continued his studies in Germany at Leipzig, Nuremberg, Cologne, Berlin and, above all Marburg. At Marburg, he was influenced by the neo-Kantianism of Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp, among others…..

…. Leaving Spain at the outbreak of the Civil War, he spent years of exile in Buenos Aires, Argentina until moving back to Europe in 1942.[5] He settled in Portugal by mid-1945 and slowly began to make short visits to Spain. In 1948 he returned to Madrid, where he founded the Institute of Humanities, at which he lectured.[7]

Mexicans were lacking initiative and enterprise. They were like the peasants in THE WILD BUNCH.

So, the Mexican government couldn’t get Mexicans to develop the SW territories. So, they welcomed Anglos to come and do the work. Lots of Anglos came and settled but identified with US than with Mexico.

To a considerable extent the Comanche and Apache drove Mexicans out of the American Southwest. It's not that they wanted to do that. The Comanche and Apache loved the Mexicans. They loved to raid them for cattle and horses. However they overdid the raiding a bit and depopulated a considerable part of the American Southwest.

Well, Mario Vargas Llosa was indeed born in Peru, but he became “famous” and got his Nobel for selling out to the NeoCon (jewish) oligarchy in Europe and then the US. It is no accident that he was part of the corruption in Panama.

….. Llosa tells us he found the “righteous”, but it seems he never looked beyond the tiny, privileged, bubble, he never met the workers, the people who clean toilets in Israel, the people who make no money as cashiers, the people who are single mothers, the people who work in concrete, the people who fix sinks, and change the oil of cars; but they are the righteous. A few privileged, rich, white people in the West Bank, who jet back and forth and drive in nice cars, and live in villas, and enjoy a good life do not deserve accolades for doing the bare minimum to do justice. They did the minimum. They have less justice than the poor and the victims, the marginalized, those without voices, those for whom daily life is a struggle, for which a bank account with a positive balance at the end of the month would be a major privilege.

If you stand with the victims and the marginalized, and you expect to get credit for doing so, you are not “righteous”, you are just seeking recognition on the backs of others. That’s not righteous. It’s probably immoral.

…. Vargas Llosa has been remarkably silent, however, about the much worse violations of human rights in Colombia under the government of Alvaro Uribe. Uribe’s army has killed nearly a thousand people, identified inaccurately as “terrorists” (a well-known false positive), and Vargas Llosa has said nothing. Colombia is also the country where more trade unionists have been assassinated han anywhere else in the world and Vargas Llosa has said nothing. In Honduras, the current government – formed through a military coup – has been killing opponents, journalists, and trade unionists, and Vargas Llosa has said nothing. He actually justified the military coup. And regarding his supposed championship of freedom of the press, Venezuela and Bolivia have much more diversity of the press than Colombia and Honduras – and Vargas Llosa, again, has said nothing about this lack of press diversity in those countries. As a matter of fact, he has presented both countries’ governments as great defenders of freedom.

It’s obvious that Mario Vargas Llosa is using the human rights issue as part of his right-wing crusade against left-wing governments. Actually, in Spain (he has Spanish citizenship), he was until recently a member of the right-wing Popular Party (PP). This party was founded by members of the fascist state led by General Franco, and it recently applauded the trial of Judge Garzon by the Spanish Supreme Court for trying to bring to trial the crimes of the Franco dictatorship. The case against Garzon was started when he was denounced by the fascist party, la Falange. During the whole process, Vargas Llosa remained silent…..

The Soviet "advisors" killed the socialists Republican government leaders and started to do what Lenin and Stalin did, genocide.

The Jewish media and Hemingway and all the empty brain liberals fell for the Jewish commie propaganda. But with the entire western world against him, general Franco drove the communists out of Spain and by the grace of God killed a lot of them.

The thing I like best about the Franco commie war is what happened to the Abraham Lincoln brigade. They were American communists and empty brain liberals who joined the communists to fight Franco's army.

The communists quickly saw the brigade were useless city boys and idiot intellectuals. Also, the communist armies were mostly Russians who didn't want to get killed.

So the communists put the Lincoln brigade cannon fodder in the front lines and they had a high death rate. Good Unfortunately some of the Lincoln brigade survived, came home and became liberals and civil rights activists.

A few years later the soviets invaded Finland and the Finns repelled the invasion. But Franco was a much, much better warrior leader of his people than the Finns because the Soviet communists had already conquered Spain when Franco began his counter revolution.

Any one who doesn't admire Franco as the only 20th century leader who fought and won a war with the soviets doesn't know the history and is just another empty brain liberal whose head is filled with liberal propaganda.

The liberals claim the Soviet communists were titled Republicans. They weren't. The socialists were the Republicans. General Franco started his counter revolution after the Russian communists killed all the socialist Republicans.

First of all, one of the reasons the population density was so diminished is because all of the natives were wiped out from disease and warfare. Low population density tends to happen when everyone is killed.

Second, density is relative. While you may think 7k people in a territory is a small amount, imagine what the Chinese think when they see sparsely populated Nebrasca.
Siberia does not have near as many people as China or India. That is no right to invade and steal someone's land.

The Spanish-speakers were NOT the “natives”! They were invaders! What an outrageous statement. The native inhabitants whose lands the Spanish/Mexicans invaded spoke Hokan, Uto-Aztecan, Tanoan, Keresan, Kiowa-Tanoan, Penutian, and Athabaskan.
The Spanish/Mexicans invaded others’ lands and were as vicious and cruel as any conquerors in history. Those they conquered fought back, even the agricultural Pueblo peoples. Haven’t you heard of Popé’s Rebellion?
And of course the plains Indians, in particular the Comanche, gave back better than they got in violence and destruction. If it wasn’t for the United States Army and the Texas Rangers, Mexico from Durango north would have been an uninhabitable wasteland.

I am sorry, but setup of this article is complete revisionist history. It is using 20/20 hindsight and the lopsided power between Mexico and the US today. To make a point that does not match the historical record.

It does not consider what were the "Facts on the Ground" in 1845/1846 actually were. They US had a Peacetime "authorized" army of 10,000. Mexico had almost 20,000 active duty and over 10,000 active Militia. Those forces would of been even larger and better equipped if President Farias of Mexico had not been intentionally undermining the army. Santa Anna was still viewed as the best military mind in the West even after losing to Texas. The Northern Army of Mexico (over 5000 regular and veteran troops) was lead by Mariano Arista, a former Spanish Army officer (so European trained). Nearly all the European powers had Officers embedded in the Mexican army during the war, because they thought Mexico was going to mop the floor with the U.S. who was completely dependent on "volunteers" not active duty regulars like Mexico.

Remember Polk offered to buy the disputed land from Mexico first, but Farias refused. Then the Northern Army of Mexico attacked a U.S. output killing dozens and taking prisoners. It was only after this that the US declared war. Santa Anna was then allowed to return, he was actually in political exile. However, he was dealing with the US under the table regarding selling the disputed land to the U.S. at a reasonable price. However, once Santa Anna got back in power he decided full war was the better option (he was going to put on a "show" then seek a quick peace) because he thought he would win and get Texas back. Otherwise he would of taken the land sale (which was only for the disputed lands in todays Texas and Oklahoma not all of the modern day Southwest). Then consolidate his power by dealing with the constant rebellions in the South of Mexico and crushing the Liberals (Santa Anna political opponents).

…. LYING AMERICANS INTO WAR
As this is being written the U.S. government is spreading the tall tale that the Syrian government allegedly killed some 100 of its own citizens with poison gas. …..

The Mexican-American War
When James K. Polk became president in 1845 he announced to his cabinet that one of his chief objectives was to acquire California, which was then a part of Mexico. As he wrote in his diary (online as “The Diary of James K. Polk”), “I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”…
….. None other than Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs that, as a young soldier serving under the command of General Zachary Taylor during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, he understood that he had been sent there to provoke a fight:
“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive [President Polk] could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”….

Your article is pure BS. America did not ILLEGALLY annex Texas. Your article provides nothing of proof about the start of the Mexican-American war. Texas was an independent country that asked to be annexed by the US. Mexico threatened the US that there would be war if the US annexed Texas because Mexico was trying to raise an army to take it back.

The Mexican elite welcomed the war with the US because they thought they would win. If they didn't want a war they should have taken the US soldiers in the disputed Nueces strip into custody and marched them to what Mexico claimed was the border. Mexico screwed itself.

Either Mexico thought it would win a war with the US or Mexican leadership was too stupid to understand that you don't intentionally start wars with countries that might beat you who also want part of your territory. Which is it?

Mexicans were lacking initiative and enterprise. They were like the peasants in THE WILD BUNCH.

So, the Mexican government couldn't get Mexicans to develop the SW territories. So, they welcomed Anglos to come and do the work. Lots of Anglos came and settled but identified with US than with Mexico.

Lesson: Demography is Destiny.

To a considerable extent the Comanche and Apache drove Mexicans out of the American Southwest. It’s not that they wanted to do that. The Comanche and Apache loved the Mexicans. They loved to raid them for cattle and horses. However they overdid the raiding a bit and depopulated a considerable part of the American Southwest.

I am sorry, but setup of this article is complete revisionist history. It is using 20/20 hindsight and the lopsided power between Mexico and the US today. To make a point that does not match the historical record.

It does not consider what were the "Facts on the Ground" in 1845/1846 actually were. They US had a Peacetime "authorized" army of 10,000. Mexico had almost 20,000 active duty and over 10,000 active Militia. Those forces would of been even larger and better equipped if President Farias of Mexico had not been intentionally undermining the army. Santa Anna was still viewed as the best military mind in the West even after losing to Texas. The Northern Army of Mexico (over 5000 regular and veteran troops) was lead by Mariano Arista, a former Spanish Army officer (so European trained). Nearly all the European powers had Officers embedded in the Mexican army during the war, because they thought Mexico was going to mop the floor with the U.S. who was completely dependent on "volunteers" not active duty regulars like Mexico.

Remember Polk offered to buy the disputed land from Mexico first, but Farias refused. Then the Northern Army of Mexico attacked a U.S. output killing dozens and taking prisoners. It was only after this that the US declared war. Santa Anna was then allowed to return, he was actually in political exile. However, he was dealing with the US under the table regarding selling the disputed land to the U.S. at a reasonable price. However, once Santa Anna got back in power he decided full war was the better option (he was going to put on a "show" then seek a quick peace) because he thought he would win and get Texas back. Otherwise he would of taken the land sale (which was only for the disputed lands in todays Texas and Oklahoma not all of the modern day Southwest). Then consolidate his power by dealing with the constant rebellions in the South of Mexico and crushing the Liberals (Santa Anna political opponents).

Great post!
An excellent history of the Mexican-American War and other events of that time is still Bernard DeVoto’s The Year of Decision: 1846. It’s a pre-PC, solidly researched and scholarly, highly readable and entertaining history. That it has been allowed to drop out of copyright says a lot about the era we live in. Highly recommended!

Fred is always telling us what an advanced and modern country Mexico is. On the other hand I just read the other day on the internet that the clearance rate for homicide in Mexico is 2%. And Mexico has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. So perhaps Mexico is not so great.

"In America, conservatives will erupt in fury on reading the foregoing."

I'm a pretty conservative American and I didn't erupt in fury.

I knew that history, too. All of it.

I'm a conservative and I'd like to see America slowly find its way out of being an imperial power. I think this would be as good for America and Americans as it would be for everybody else.

Imagine that!

Fred,

There is something fundamentally wrong with Hispanic culture south of the border, which motivates millions of Hispanics to trek to El Norte to escape that culture. The real question when it comes to Hispanic immigration to the United States is, “When are Latins (Argentina to Mexico … and including Brazil) going to overthrown their Iberian oppressors who continue to economically exploit them in what charitably may be described as neo-colonialism.”

As for the American annexation of the southwest, a comment allegedly made by a Mexican politician: “Why did you let the rest of us stay down here to rot?”

“Sorry about that!”

As historians have often noted, the Spanish and Portuguese came to what is now Latin America to exploit the local populations and get rich by any means possible. Most did not bring their families. The British, on the other hand, came to North America with their families to create a new life for themselves and their families … exploitation vs. settlement. As a generalization, Latin America retains this exploitive culture, which accounts for the lawlessness, corruption, violence, and poverty typical of Latin American countries.

Put another way, the United States was primarily settled by people who brought their high trust, beyond-kin altruistic culture with them (at least until the current wave of immigration). Latin America is typified by low trust, clan- and family-based societies with predictable results.

As a harbinger of things to come, the US State Department recently put 23 of the 31 states in Mexico on travel notices due to violence. This is up from 14 states on travel notices in March 2017.

That's the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we'd all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border.

Fundamentally, it's the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms. In Central America, the cynical elites want to spirit them north to go be someone else's problem. Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions. This ends badly.

Thank you for your comment. I find it incredible that the U.S. seems on the brink of breaking diplomatic relations with Russia, a country of 143 million, most of whose population is almost on the other side of the world, and with which the United States has never fought a war (I exclude obviously, the Cold War, but that was with the USSR), and with which it has no obvious conflict. Yet it ignores the consular and other governmental activities of Mexico, a counry of 127 million, with a long common border, with historical claims on large portions of U.S. territory, significant enough that WWI Germany offered to support them in return for a Mexican declaration of war on the United States. Add to that a large number of dual-nationals and “Americans” who cheer for Mexican soccer teams and probably feel more Mexican than American. As you say, this will not end well.

The Liefare-Warfare State
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/thomas-dilorenzo/the-liefare-warfare-state/

.... LYING AMERICANS INTO WAR
As this is being written the U.S. government is spreading the tall tale that the Syrian government allegedly killed some 100 of its own citizens with poison gas. .....

The Mexican-American War
When James K. Polk became president in 1845 he announced to his cabinet that one of his chief objectives was to acquire California, which was then a part of Mexico. As he wrote in his diary (online as “The Diary of James K. Polk”), “I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”...
..... None other than Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs that, as a young soldier serving under the command of General Zachary Taylor during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, he understood that he had been sent there to provoke a fight:
“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive [President Polk] could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”....

Anatomy Of A False Flag
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/anatomy-of-false-flag.html
False flags are an American tradition. They go way back.....

Your article is pure BS. America did not ILLEGALLY annex Texas. Your article provides nothing of proof about the start of the Mexican-American war. Texas was an independent country that asked to be annexed by the US. Mexico threatened the US that there would be war if the US annexed Texas because Mexico was trying to raise an army to take it back.

The Mexican elite welcomed the war with the US because they thought they would win. If they didn’t want a war they should have taken the US soldiers in the disputed Nueces strip into custody and marched them to what Mexico claimed was the border. Mexico screwed itself.

Either Mexico thought it would win a war with the US or Mexican leadership was too stupid to understand that you don’t intentionally start wars with countries that might beat you who also want part of your territory. Which is it?

Consider Eduardo and Maria, Salvadorans living in San Salvador in a dirt-floored cinderblock hut. They have little money, not because they are stupid or lazy but because there are no jobs. Their two kids cry at night because they are hungry. Their only hope, they decide, is for Eduardo to try to get to the US, a ballsy and dangerous idea, send money back, and try to figure out how to get Maria and the kids into the US.

Consider the fact that money isn’t real and that plenty of settlers have come to open land and built entire communities without any significant money all by binding together into a community and sharing their labor for the betterment of the entire community.

In my occasional trips into the third world you see an awful lot of people just sitting around doing nothing all day waiting for something to happen. Maybe if those people organized themselves, got off their asses, and did something on their own, the places wouldn’t look like shitholes.

One of the biggest problems facing human kind is population growth. That's the root of the 'immigration' problem.

Philosophically, I believe in Freedom. And a key freedom is being able to live where one wants to live. I grew up in Cold War 1.0 propaganda, and this was often sited as one of the great evils of the Soviet Union. The evil state would tell people where they were allowed to live.

When I studied economics at school, we were taught there were three inputs to industry. Capital was of course one, and its become dominant since my school days. Raw Materials were the second. Labor was the third.

Today, we are told that Capital and Raw Materials have to be able to cross any national border, irrespective of whether the people there thing its a good idea. But its become verbotten for people to be free to cross borders. Somehow, that's not right.

With the elites able to manipulate Capital and flows of Raw Material and Goods, they can crash and destroy any economy they want. And we've seen the bankers try to use Capital to crush countries that dare to be independent of the bankers desires. The result ends up being that while the economy of a country can be destroy, the people are told that they have to remain there.

On the other hand, it makes sense for a country to look at what resources it has available. Does it have the housing to accept more people? Does it have the jobs to accept more people? Does it have the resources to provide the assistence that new people arriving are almost certain to need? If the answer to these questions are no, then its right and humane for the country to say that it is temporarily restricting immigration.

But, at its root, the real cause of these problems is population growth. If the population of humans on earth keeps growing, the it will eventually overstretch the resources available. Which means increasingly life is going to suck more and more, and that more and more people are going to want to go where life doesn't suck so badly.

At some point, the human race needs to get its population problem under control. If it doesn't, then the population is going to overshoot the available resources and a great tragedy is going to occur. If it does get population contained within the resources available, then we can celebrate freedom and be able to accomodate people free to live where they want to live.

The population of the United States and the world has exploded in my lifetime. In the 1930s the population of the US was 130 mission and now over 330 million. The world population was 2 billion and now over 7 billion. Many more poor than rich. Something will have to give as Cayman suggests.

Fred is always telling us what an advanced and modern country Mexico is. On the other hand I just read the other day on the internet that the clearance rate for homicide in Mexico is 2%. And Mexico has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. So perhaps Mexico is not so great.

“…the clearance rate for homicide in Mexico is 2%. And Mexico has one of the highest homicide rates in the world.”

Substitute the word “Milwaukee” for “Mexico” and you have an almost identical situation here in one city in the USA.

I believe Fred is deliberately misquoting the President's statement about Mexicans. Trump said that some of them are rapists which is true. Some of every tribe are. Is this Fred's Fake News or what?

I am also always struck as to why these valiant Mexicans, Hondurans or whatever can never seem to manage a country where their own citizens want to stay. All these places are the same. Nobody really wants to go there unless they have pensions or such and can live cheaper than at home. And, generally, they live in expat, tribal communities just as Fred does. He couldn't make it in the USA so he went to Mexico and went native from whence he now pontificates to those of us who stayed home.

That's the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we'd all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border.

Fundamentally, it's the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms. In Central America, the cynical elites want to spirit them north to go be someone else's problem. Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions. This ends badly.

Another anonymous coward. Rethink my choices in life? Which one(s) do you suggest? My dislike of anonymous critics perhaps? Those personal cowards who hide their identity from their alleged principles? Mine are out there, for better or worse. I may be wrong but I'm not a coward. You, on the other hand, are clearly both.

That's the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we'd all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border.

Fundamentally, it's the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms. In Central America, the cynical elites want to spirit them north to go be someone else's problem. Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions. This ends badly.

“That’s the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we’d all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border.”

Replace “manifest destiny” with “colonization”, and you would be accurate.

“Fundamentally, it’s the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms.”

I didn’t realize that immigrants seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be characterized as possessing “different behavioral norms”.

“Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions.”

You mean our budding entrepreneurs who warmly embrace the basic capitalistic desire to maximize their profits and minimize their costs. I am certain that your upper class lifestyle as a lawyer, with professional wife in tow, has greatly benefitted from such transactions.

So while it might be fair to say that America “stole” the lands, they really weren’t much more than empty desert…

Ron,

Question: suppose Canada had "stolen" Minnesota at the same time. Since there were no more than 6,000 "Americans" people living there at the time, do you really think Americans today would be indifferent to this? ("We've really got no cause to complain, after all it was only unpopulated forest land")

“Question: suppose Canada had “stolen” Minnesota at the same time. Since there were no more than 6,000 “Americans” people living there at the time, do you really think Americans today would be indifferent to this?”

Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras - and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of "our" mainstream media protects Americans from knowing.

London Editor Proposes British Honduras Be Turned into Jewish State
http://www.jta.org/1939/01/08/archive/london-editor-proposes-british-honduras-be-turned-into-jewish-state
A suggestion that British Honduras be transformed into a Jewish State under the joint protection of Great Britain and the United States was made today by W.E. Simnett, editor of the Crown Colonist, in a letter published by the Spectator, independent political and literary periodical.
Mr. Simnett would transfer administration of the colony to responsible Jewish authorities. He pointed out that British Honduras, in Central America, is the size of Palestine and is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mostly natives....

Palestine Arabs Living in Honduras Are Threatened with Deportation
http://www.jta.org/1926/10/17/archive/palestine-arabs-living-in-honduras-are-threatened-with-deportation

The Jewish families that run Honduras
https://dagobertobellucci.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/the-jewish-families-that-run-honduras/

THE ISRAELI CONNECTION TO THE HONDURAN COUP
https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/the-israeli-connection-to-the-honduran-coup/

Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_criminal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/

Before Her Murder, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Criticism
The presidential candidate has ignored criticism of her role in enabling the consolidation of the Honduran coup.
http://www.thenation.com/article/chronicle-of-a-honduran-assassination-foretold/

Honduras and Israel: A New Special Relationship
Just as it serviced murderous regimes in Central America in the 1980s, Israel will now be exporting forms of repression to Honduras' abusive government.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Honduras-and-Israel-A-New-Special-Relationship-20160825-0008.html#comsup

And, of course, the sect is now fully into exploiting the success of their coup in Honduras.
Archaeology, Biology, Appropriation, and Empire in Honduras
http://www.unz.com/plee/archaeology-biology-appropriation-and-empire-in-honduras/

The "history" is the same in much of Central America. "Our" media goes to great lengths to cover up who produced the millions of refugees in the US from Central America.

How Neocons Destabilized Europe
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/07/how-neocons-destabilized-europe/
..... When I first encountered the neocons in the 1980s, they had been given Central America to play with. President Ronald Reagan had credentialed many of them, bringing into the U.S. government neocon luminaries such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan. But Reagan mostly kept them out of the big-power realms: the Mideast and Europe.

Those strategic areas went to the “adults,” people like James Baker, George Shultz, Philip Habib and Brent Scowcroft. The poor Central Americans, as they tried to shed generations of repression and backwardness imposed by brutal right-wing oligarchies, faced U.S. neocon ideologues who unleashed death squads and even genocide against peasants, students and workers.

The result not surprisingly was a flood of refugees, especially from El Salvador and Guatemala, northward to the United States. The neocon “success” in the 1980s, crushing progressive social movements and reinforcing the oligarchic controls, left most countries of Central America in the grip of corrupt regimes and crime syndicates, periodically driving more waves of what Reagan called “feet people” through Mexico to the southern U.S. border......

Speaking of your favorite subject, you have yet to prove this specific claim–“Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.”

Recall in a source you provided that Dutch Jews reportedly controlled 17% of the Caribbean trade. Was it the slave trade or non-slave trade? It doesn’t specify. Regardless, there is no reference to the 90% statistic YOU allege.

Willie F. Page, professor of African American Studies at Brooklyn College, noted that in Dutch Brazil, the Jews operated less than 6% of the plantations.

Seymour Drescher remarked in Immigrants And Minorities (July 1993) that Jews’ investment share in the Dutch West India Company “amounted to only 0.5 percent of the company’s capital”. Dutch historians Pieter Emmer and Johanes Postma have argued that “Jews had a very limited and subordinate roles even at the height of the Dutch slave trade in the 17th century.”

Are you going to retract your statement, or are you going to keep peddling Joo sophistry in hopes of not getting caught?

[Patriotism] ...is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a longline of successive "owners" who each in turn, as "patriots" with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of "robbers" who came to steal it and did -- and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

[Patriotism] …is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn’t a foot of land in the world which doesn’t represent the ousting and re-ousting of a longline of successive “owners” who each in turn, as “patriots” with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of “robbers” who came to steal it and did — and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn.
- Mark Twain’s Notebook

Ok, fine. I appreciate Fred being as honest as he’s ever been. America sucks; no one is going to “get over” anything; conservatives are ignorant louts; Mexicans are simply re-acquiring what is lawfully theirs; and most important the old what would YOU do, if you were in Pepe’s Zapatos?
Thing is, I truly don’t care. Just as I truly don’t care about lawless Blacks, due to the destruction they have caused. We are where we ARE, not where Mexico feels we should be. Bottom line, a country that rich in natural resources, not to mention all of the Mensa level scientists Fred believes he sees everywhere, should not be in a situation where millions have to illegally enter my country in order to survive. Period. It has nothing to do with fair/unfair.
Open borders with zero restrictions, or laws. Fred chooses “A”…

If I”m not wrong, Mexico became an independent nation in 1821. The Mexican War took place about 25 years later, did the Mexican government really have valid title to the lands they stole, through armed insurrection, from the Spanish crown? Which the Spanish crown took through force of arms from the native population? I realize, that to most people, facts don’t matter, like Trump saying that “some” illegal aliens from Mexico were rapists, is changed to “all” illegal Mexicans are rapists, or Trump’s blaming both sides in Charlottseville for violence is the same thing as being a card carrying racist Nazi, but facts are still facts.

Wow, you're going to swing that cat in a country that theoretically had a well established rule of law under the British Crown but chose to use force to deprive those landholders of their just and proper title?

Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras - and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of "our" mainstream media protects Americans from knowing.

London Editor Proposes British Honduras Be Turned into Jewish State
http://www.jta.org/1939/01/08/archive/london-editor-proposes-british-honduras-be-turned-into-jewish-state
A suggestion that British Honduras be transformed into a Jewish State under the joint protection of Great Britain and the United States was made today by W.E. Simnett, editor of the Crown Colonist, in a letter published by the Spectator, independent political and literary periodical.
Mr. Simnett would transfer administration of the colony to responsible Jewish authorities. He pointed out that British Honduras, in Central America, is the size of Palestine and is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mostly natives....

Palestine Arabs Living in Honduras Are Threatened with Deportation
http://www.jta.org/1926/10/17/archive/palestine-arabs-living-in-honduras-are-threatened-with-deportation

The Jewish families that run Honduras
https://dagobertobellucci.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/the-jewish-families-that-run-honduras/

THE ISRAELI CONNECTION TO THE HONDURAN COUP
https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/the-israeli-connection-to-the-honduran-coup/

Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_criminal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/

Before Her Murder, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Criticism
The presidential candidate has ignored criticism of her role in enabling the consolidation of the Honduran coup.
http://www.thenation.com/article/chronicle-of-a-honduran-assassination-foretold/

Honduras and Israel: A New Special Relationship
Just as it serviced murderous regimes in Central America in the 1980s, Israel will now be exporting forms of repression to Honduras' abusive government.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Honduras-and-Israel-A-New-Special-Relationship-20160825-0008.html#comsup

And, of course, the sect is now fully into exploiting the success of their coup in Honduras.
Archaeology, Biology, Appropriation, and Empire in Honduras
http://www.unz.com/plee/archaeology-biology-appropriation-and-empire-in-honduras/

The "history" is the same in much of Central America. "Our" media goes to great lengths to cover up who produced the millions of refugees in the US from Central America.

How Neocons Destabilized Europe
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/07/how-neocons-destabilized-europe/
..... When I first encountered the neocons in the 1980s, they had been given Central America to play with. President Ronald Reagan had credentialed many of them, bringing into the U.S. government neocon luminaries such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan. But Reagan mostly kept them out of the big-power realms: the Mideast and Europe.

Those strategic areas went to the “adults,” people like James Baker, George Shultz, Philip Habib and Brent Scowcroft. The poor Central Americans, as they tried to shed generations of repression and backwardness imposed by brutal right-wing oligarchies, faced U.S. neocon ideologues who unleashed death squads and even genocide against peasants, students and workers.

The result not surprisingly was a flood of refugees, especially from El Salvador and Guatemala, northward to the United States. The neocon “success” in the 1980s, crushing progressive social movements and reinforcing the oligarchic controls, left most countries of Central America in the grip of corrupt regimes and crime syndicates, periodically driving more waves of what Reagan called “feet people” through Mexico to the southern U.S. border......

Well done, Anonymous. Don't break anonymity. Jim Sweeney, go home and rethink your choices in life.

Another anonymous coward. Rethink my choices in life? Which one(s) do you suggest? My dislike of anonymous critics perhaps? Those personal cowards who hide their identity from their alleged principles? Mine are out there, for better or worse. I may be wrong but I’m not a coward. You, on the other hand, are clearly both.

"[O]ne may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”"

I like Fred, I’ve read his columns for years, but sometimes I think his problem is that he must spend too much time around right-wing web sites and starts to think that extreme anti-Mexican sentiments are the problem.

I’ve got two words for you: status quo. The problem that we actually have is not excessive opposition to Mexican immigrants. These are the problems that we actually have:
1. Immigration levels are far too high and not nearly selective enough
2. Enforcement of the law is absurdly lacking
3. Expectations and encouragement of assimilation are lacking
4. Too much geographic concentration is occuring
5. Most importantly – we’ve actually been going so far as to deny that we even have the right to decide who can come here.

I know that there are many sympathetic cases of individual illegal immigrants. Maybe most of them. I don’t blame the immigrants themselves – they didn’t set our immigration policy or lack thereof – they’re just responding to it. This is a public policy issue that affects the future of the country. We can’t let sympathy for individuals prevent us from fixing these large-scale problems.

Well put, Fred! I think one of the biggest problems Americans have is the complete inability to see themselves as others see them. And of course, they see themselves as “the good guys”, so “exceptional” that the rules don’t apply to them. It’s a bad case of what Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn used to call “nostrism” – collective egoism. Any American who claimed for himself as an individual what most are willing to claim for themselves collectively would be considered at best a pompous ass, at worst a sociopath.

Another anonymous coward. Rethink my choices in life? Which one(s) do you suggest? My dislike of anonymous critics perhaps? Those personal cowards who hide their identity from their alleged principles? Mine are out there, for better or worse. I may be wrong but I'm not a coward. You, on the other hand, are clearly both.

“[O]ne may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.””

Found out? Nobody "found it out" I wrote it in one of my recent comments here and you allege you found it out by some alchemy of yours. You're a fabulist as well as a coward. Nobody with my father's thoroughly Irish family name is ever accused of being Jewish without prior knowledge.

You, Coward, did not find anything except what I wrote here myself. So much for your credibility as well.

However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless

Yes, I don't think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America "stole" the lands, they really weren't much more than empty desert...

Mexico was compensated for the land it lost ($15 M in 1850, about $7 BN today after inflation), so “stolen” might not be quite the proper word. That was probably close to fair market value for unimproved, mostly uninhabited land. The fact that Mexico was compensated at all is remarkable, because for much of history, I think the idea of compensating the loser is comparatively rare. I don’t think Stalin and Hitler paid the Poles when they divvied up Poland in 1939.

Anyway, the simple fact that the immigration issue is so emotional on both sides suggests that maybe there are too many immigrants? If the numbers were not so large, the stakes would not be as high and the issue could be rationally debated like any other. No one flips out when discussing the Energy Department’s budget after all.

So if you are forced out of your home by eminent domain to build a casino, resort or shopping village rather than being allowed to freely contract for what you consider to be a fair value from the developers and not that which is imposed on you by a coercive force, you won't feel like you were cheated, right?

It is not true that the Spanish empire ended slavery in the 1500s. This is, I suspect, a bit of sanitizing Catholic history. It outlawed Indian slavery. Bishop Las Casas said that enslaving Indians was bad but it was good for blacks. Slavery of blacks was long practiced throughout Spanish America. It lasted in Cuba several decades after the U.S. War between the States. Even more so in the Portugeuse territories.

Actually the Pope gave the portuguese (jews) monopoly rights for the slave trade. The commonality of slave trading by Portugal and Britain is one of the "ties that bind" between the two countries.

THE POPE, THE JEWS, AND THE SLAVE TRADE
http://linesandprecepts.com/2013/11/23/popes-that-supported-the-slave-trade/
Pope Nicholas V issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.....

Portugal, the mother of all slavers Part II
http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/nacs0502.html
We conclude the piece on how Portugal gave birth to the TransAtlantic Slave Trade. Part I was run in the March issue.

As shown in Part I, the Portuguese king, Henry the Navigator, gave explicit instructions to his sailors in 1445 to "win over" the Africans so they could "buy" human beings, instead of kidnapping them as they had hitherto been doing. How anybody can "buy" a human being for a motley collection of a bottle of rum, a teapot and a thread of glass beads, and still call himself "civilised" and a "Christian", numbs the mind.

But that is what the Portuguese did. By 1488, they were making so much money from the slave trade that King Joao, with pride in his eyes, could tell Pope Innocent VIII that "the profits from the slave trade were helping to finance the wars against Islam in North Africa."

By 1506, the Portuguese monarch was earning over two million reis from the slave trade through taxes and duties. By royal decree, Portuguese settlers in the Americas (then called the New World) were given loans on easy terms, from 1531 onwards, to buy slaves to work their sugar plantations.

A touchy issue

As the profits mounted, the Portuguese elite and the rich put more investments into the trade. It is here that we come across a very touchy issue - the involvement of European Jews in the slave trade.

But as the facts must fall where they may, even Hugh Thomas, one of the greatest Western chroniclers of the slave trade who went to exceptional lengths in his 925-page tome on the slave trade published in November 1997, to disguise the involvement of European Jews in the slave trade, cannot help but say:

"The most important merchant of Portugal concerned in the slave trade in the mid-16th century was Fernando Jimenez who [was] based in Lisbon... Despite his Jewish ancestry, the powerful reforming Pope Sixtus V was so appreciative of his services that he gave him the right to use his own surname, Peretti.

"Jimenez's descendants were among the largest contractors in Africa - above all, eventually, in Angola. The Jimenezes were run close in wealth and influence by another New Christian [an euphemism for a converted Jew or converso], Emmanuel Rodrigues, and his family - including Simon, a dominant figure in the [slave] trade from Cape Verde."

Hugh continues: "Other conversos in the slave trade included Manuel Caldeira, whose great days were in the early 1560s, and who then became chief treasurer of the realm... It is true that much of the slave trade in the 16th and 17th centuries in Lisbon [the glory centuries of the Portuguese slave trade] was financed by converted Jews, New Christians or conversos; though whether such a person is to be seen as a Jew is not something on which I should wish to pronounce."

Who can blame Hugh Thomas? The involvement of European Jews in the slave trade is almost a taboo subject, which only the brave talk and write about. .....

Not so simple. In fact, in the times of Bartolomeo de las Casas, Spain had an agreement with Portugal NOT to compete with the Portuguese in the West African trade/colonies, i.e. the source of black slaves was closed to the Spanish. Later the spanish "latafundistas" complained that they were at a commercial disadvantage because they did not have Africn slaves.

"[O]ne may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”"

Found out? Nobody “found it out” I wrote it in one of my recent comments here and you allege you found it out by some alchemy of yours. You’re a fabulist as well as a coward. Nobody with my father’s thoroughly Irish family name is ever accused of being Jewish without prior knowledge.

You, Coward, did not find anything except what I wrote here myself. So much for your credibility as well.

I love you Fred but please do some basic fact-checking. Ortega y Gasset was a Spaniard, not a Latin American. Other than speaking the same language, he had ZERO to do with these indios and mestizos invading our country

Found out? Nobody "found it out" I wrote it in one of my recent comments here and you allege you found it out by some alchemy of yours. You're a fabulist as well as a coward. Nobody with my father's thoroughly Irish family name is ever accused of being Jewish without prior knowledge.

You, Coward, did not find anything except what I wrote here myself. So much for your credibility as well.

Speaking of your favorite subject, you have yet to prove this specific claim–“Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.”

Recall in a source you provided that Dutch Jews reportedly controlled 17% of the Caribbean trade. Was it the slave trade or non-slave trade? It doesn't specify. Regardless, there is no reference to the 90% statistic YOU allege.

Willie F. Page, professor of African American Studies at Brooklyn College, noted that in Dutch Brazil, the Jews operated less than 6% of the plantations.

Seymour Drescher remarked in Immigrants And Minorities (July 1993) that Jews’ investment share in the Dutch West India Company “amounted to only 0.5 percent of the company’s capital”. Dutch historians Pieter Emmer and Johanes Postma have argued that “Jews had a very limited and subordinate roles even at the height of the Dutch slave trade in the 17th century.”

Are you going to retract your statement, or are you going to keep peddling Joo sophistry in hopes of not getting caught?

As I replied previously, new evidence turns up all the time. Here is some more.

It is not true that the Spanish empire ended slavery in the 1500s. This is, I suspect, a bit of sanitizing Catholic history. It outlawed Indian slavery. Bishop Las Casas said that enslaving Indians was bad but it was good for blacks. Slavery of blacks was long practiced throughout Spanish America. It lasted in Cuba several decades after the U.S. War between the States. Even more so in the Portugeuse territories.

Actually the Pope gave the portuguese (jews) monopoly rights for the slave trade. The commonality of slave trading by Portugal and Britain is one of the “ties that bind” between the two countries.

Pope Nicholas V issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa…..

We conclude the piece on how Portugal gave birth to the TransAtlantic Slave Trade. Part I was run in the March issue.

As shown in Part I, the Portuguese king, Henry the Navigator, gave explicit instructions to his sailors in 1445 to “win over” the Africans so they could “buy” human beings, instead of kidnapping them as they had hitherto been doing. How anybody can “buy” a human being for a motley collection of a bottle of rum, a teapot and a thread of glass beads, and still call himself “civilised” and a “Christian”, numbs the mind.

But that is what the Portuguese did. By 1488, they were making so much money from the slave trade that King Joao, with pride in his eyes, could tell Pope Innocent VIII that “the profits from the slave trade were helping to finance the wars against Islam in North Africa.”

By 1506, the Portuguese monarch was earning over two million reis from the slave trade through taxes and duties. By royal decree, Portuguese settlers in the Americas (then called the New World) were given loans on easy terms, from 1531 onwards, to buy slaves to work their sugar plantations.

A touchy issue

As the profits mounted, the Portuguese elite and the rich put more investments into the trade. It is here that we come across a very touchy issue – the involvement of European Jews in the slave trade.

But as the facts must fall where they may, even Hugh Thomas, one of the greatest Western chroniclers of the slave trade who went to exceptional lengths in his 925-page tome on the slave trade published in November 1997, to disguise the involvement of European Jews in the slave trade, cannot help but say:

“The most important merchant of Portugal concerned in the slave trade in the mid-16th century was Fernando Jimenez who [was] based in Lisbon… Despite his Jewish ancestry, the powerful reforming Pope Sixtus V was so appreciative of his services that he gave him the right to use his own surname, Peretti.

“Jimenez’s descendants were among the largest contractors in Africa – above all, eventually, in Angola. The Jimenezes were run close in wealth and influence by another New Christian [an euphemism for a converted Jew or converso], Emmanuel Rodrigues, and his family – including Simon, a dominant figure in the [slave] trade from Cape Verde.”

Hugh continues: “Other conversos in the slave trade included Manuel Caldeira, whose great days were in the early 1560s, and who then became chief treasurer of the realm… It is true that much of the slave trade in the 16th and 17th centuries in Lisbon [the glory centuries of the Portuguese slave trade] was financed by converted Jews, New Christians or conversos; though whether such a person is to be seen as a Jew is not something on which I should wish to pronounce.”

Who can blame Hugh Thomas? The involvement of European Jews in the slave trade is almost a taboo subject, which only the brave talk and write about. …..

It is not true that the Spanish empire ended slavery in the 1500s. This is, I suspect, a bit of sanitizing Catholic history. It outlawed Indian slavery. Bishop Las Casas said that enslaving Indians was bad but it was good for blacks. Slavery of blacks was long practiced throughout Spanish America. It lasted in Cuba several decades after the U.S. War between the States. Even more so in the Portugeuse territories.

Not so simple. In fact, in the times of Bartolomeo de las Casas, Spain had an agreement with Portugal NOT to compete with the Portuguese in the West African trade/colonies, i.e. the source of black slaves was closed to the Spanish. Later the spanish “latafundistas” complained that they were at a commercial disadvantage because they did not have Africn slaves.

Sorry I can read it and kind of understand the Portuguese of Portugal, but suffer with Portuguese. We lose a lot by not being able to read in different languages. Comparing english wiki with spanish or german wiki is always amusing!

"Actually the Pope gave the portuguese (jews) monopoly rights for the slave trade. The commonality of slave trading by Portugal and Britain is one of the “ties that bind” between the two countries."

Your source does not make that specific reference. It only indicates that the Pope granted Portugal
the liberty to procures slaves from West Africa.

Furthermore, the source claims "It is important to understand that the majority of the men, women, and children that were sold to the Europeans during the trans-atlantic slave trade were the Biblical Israelites / Hebrews/ Jews."

It would appear the source is claiming that Europeans were squarely responsible for enslaving...wait for it...black Jews.

"How anybody can “buy” a human being for a motley collection of a bottle of rum, a teapot and a thread of glass beads, and still call himself “civilised” and a “Christian”, numbs the mind."

How you can repeatedly misrepresent the truth when it comes to the slave trade is amazing. Are you able to call yourself "civilized" and a "Christian" in light of this fact?

Your source only indicates Jewish involvement, which is acknowledged. But Hugh Thomas himself stated, "If one is looking for villains in this matter, and some are, one should certainly indeed look at royal families more severely than at Jewish ones: I am partly thinking of the rulers of Benin; the kings of Ashanti, Congo, and Dahomey; and the Vili rulers of Loango, who sold great numbers of slaves over many generations, but also of monarchs in Europe, such as one of my own heroes, Ferdinand the Catholic, king of Aragon. "Athlete of Christ," as he was named by the pope, he gave the first license to carry slaves on a large scale to the New World, since he wished them to extract gold from the mines of Santo Domingo. But, then, perhaps Ferdinand cannot be blamed specially for agreeing to the transfer of slaves from one part of his dominions to another, for his agents seem to have bought the Africans concerned in Seville, they having been carried there by merchants of Lisbon such as Bartolommeo Marchionni. Like everyone in his age, Ferdinand would have supposed that, unpleasant though it might be to be a slave, to be owned by a Christian master was infinitely better than being a subject of an infidel. One could find King John III of Portugal responsible for an even more dangerous innovation for he, in 1530, agreed that slaves from Africa might be taken direct to the Americas. And how can we exclude the Sun King himself, Louis XIV, from our selective castigation, for his ministers agreed to pay a bounty for every slave delivered to the New World -- a bounty that was still being paid in 1790, the year when Thomas Clarkson, in Paris to publicize the cause of abolition, was told by the minister, Necker, recently recalled to power, that he dared not show the diagram of how slaves were stowed on the ship Brookes of Liverpool to the Sun King's successor-but-one, Louis XVI, because it would distress him too much. Still, historians should not look for villains."

Not so simple. In fact, in the times of Bartolomeo de las Casas, Spain had an agreement with Portugal NOT to compete with the Portuguese in the West African trade/colonies, i.e. the source of black slaves was closed to the Spanish. Later the spanish "latafundistas" complained that they were at a commercial disadvantage because they did not have Africn slaves.

Stashed in the National Archives in London’s leafy suburb of Kew are hundreds of boxes of documents marked T71. Each of the sepia-coloured sheets inside them holds handwritten details of estates and slaves, including how much each “negro” was worth, creating the most extensive known paper trail of slave owners in the UK’s former colonies.

For 170 years, the papers remained unexamined, allowing companies, families and institutions that knowingly profited from slavery to conceal their links to the trade and keeping those who were unaware of them in ignorance.....

Didn’t read past the first few paragraphs. If Mexico hates us so much, why do so many move here.
Even this poor White trash deplorable learned about the mex amer war. What Fred doesn’t know is that when General Scott conquered Mexico City he was met by the powers that be who asked General Scott if he would like to be king of Mexico. He declined.

The Mexican powers that be and many Americans wanted to incorporate Mexico as US territory and then one mega state or several smaller states.

It never happened because slavery was illegal in Mexico and the southern states didn’t want another non slave territory.
The Mexican equivalent of PBS has documentaries about this. Every time it’s on TV Mexicans make numerous jokes ” how much better life in Mexico would be if we had become part of the US back then.

My thing is affirmative action. That is why I object to any and all non white immigrants who are entitled to affirmative action jobs the day they arrive.

If Mexico is so great, stay there.

On the other hand, Mexico treats its native citizens a lot better than the US does. Mexico doesn’t give government jobs to unqualified foreigners who can’t speak the language. Mexico never passed a law requiring employers to hire non Mexican foreigners.

And the Mexican school and university system doesn’t teach Mexican students that Mexico and its natives are the cause only cause of every problem in the world. Mexican schools and colleges don’t teach that native Mexicans are the cancer of the world and should be exterminated.

That was a very confusing time in Mexican history since they went through a period of being French (Napoleon), to being declared independent (1821) to finally being accepted as independent by Spain (1836). But remember that the first university in North America was in Mexico (1550s, about 80 years before Harvard). Also remember that Mexicans were very united when Wilson invaded Veracruz (and our troops then had to be rescued by Brazil). Lots of english language sites, but always interesting to read sources from the other side.

Also remember that a substantial proportion of the "immigrants" to the US are in fact not Mexican, but Central American. As for the reasons, see the links in comment 23:
"" Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras – and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of “our” mainstream media protects Americans from knowing. ""

Not so simple. In fact, in the times of Bartolomeo de las Casas, Spain had an agreement with Portugal NOT to compete with the Portuguese in the West African trade/colonies, i.e. the source of black slaves was closed to the Spanish. Later the spanish "latafundistas" complained that they were at a commercial disadvantage because they did not have Africn slaves.

One of the biggest problems facing human kind is population growth. That's the root of the 'immigration' problem.

Philosophically, I believe in Freedom. And a key freedom is being able to live where one wants to live. I grew up in Cold War 1.0 propaganda, and this was often sited as one of the great evils of the Soviet Union. The evil state would tell people where they were allowed to live.

When I studied economics at school, we were taught there were three inputs to industry. Capital was of course one, and its become dominant since my school days. Raw Materials were the second. Labor was the third.

Today, we are told that Capital and Raw Materials have to be able to cross any national border, irrespective of whether the people there thing its a good idea. But its become verbotten for people to be free to cross borders. Somehow, that's not right.

With the elites able to manipulate Capital and flows of Raw Material and Goods, they can crash and destroy any economy they want. And we've seen the bankers try to use Capital to crush countries that dare to be independent of the bankers desires. The result ends up being that while the economy of a country can be destroy, the people are told that they have to remain there.

On the other hand, it makes sense for a country to look at what resources it has available. Does it have the housing to accept more people? Does it have the jobs to accept more people? Does it have the resources to provide the assistence that new people arriving are almost certain to need? If the answer to these questions are no, then its right and humane for the country to say that it is temporarily restricting immigration.

But, at its root, the real cause of these problems is population growth. If the population of humans on earth keeps growing, the it will eventually overstretch the resources available. Which means increasingly life is going to suck more and more, and that more and more people are going to want to go where life doesn't suck so badly.

At some point, the human race needs to get its population problem under control. If it doesn't, then the population is going to overshoot the available resources and a great tragedy is going to occur. If it does get population contained within the resources available, then we can celebrate freedom and be able to accomodate people free to live where they want to live.

The root for immigration is not population growth, but inequality. Poor Americans are, by definition, rich to Indians, Mexicans, etc. Branko Milanovic has written some good stuff about this

One of the biggest problems facing human kind is population growth. That's the root of the 'immigration' problem.

Philosophically, I believe in Freedom. And a key freedom is being able to live where one wants to live. I grew up in Cold War 1.0 propaganda, and this was often sited as one of the great evils of the Soviet Union. The evil state would tell people where they were allowed to live.

When I studied economics at school, we were taught there were three inputs to industry. Capital was of course one, and its become dominant since my school days. Raw Materials were the second. Labor was the third.

Today, we are told that Capital and Raw Materials have to be able to cross any national border, irrespective of whether the people there thing its a good idea. But its become verbotten for people to be free to cross borders. Somehow, that's not right.

With the elites able to manipulate Capital and flows of Raw Material and Goods, they can crash and destroy any economy they want. And we've seen the bankers try to use Capital to crush countries that dare to be independent of the bankers desires. The result ends up being that while the economy of a country can be destroy, the people are told that they have to remain there.

On the other hand, it makes sense for a country to look at what resources it has available. Does it have the housing to accept more people? Does it have the jobs to accept more people? Does it have the resources to provide the assistence that new people arriving are almost certain to need? If the answer to these questions are no, then its right and humane for the country to say that it is temporarily restricting immigration.

But, at its root, the real cause of these problems is population growth. If the population of humans on earth keeps growing, the it will eventually overstretch the resources available. Which means increasingly life is going to suck more and more, and that more and more people are going to want to go where life doesn't suck so badly.

At some point, the human race needs to get its population problem under control. If it doesn't, then the population is going to overshoot the available resources and a great tragedy is going to occur. If it does get population contained within the resources available, then we can celebrate freedom and be able to accomodate people free to live where they want to live.

I am sorry, but setup of this article is complete revisionist history. It is using 20/20 hindsight and the lopsided power between Mexico and the US today. To make a point that does not match the historical record.

It does not consider what were the "Facts on the Ground" in 1845/1846 actually were. They US had a Peacetime "authorized" army of 10,000. Mexico had almost 20,000 active duty and over 10,000 active Militia. Those forces would of been even larger and better equipped if President Farias of Mexico had not been intentionally undermining the army. Santa Anna was still viewed as the best military mind in the West even after losing to Texas. The Northern Army of Mexico (over 5000 regular and veteran troops) was lead by Mariano Arista, a former Spanish Army officer (so European trained). Nearly all the European powers had Officers embedded in the Mexican army during the war, because they thought Mexico was going to mop the floor with the U.S. who was completely dependent on "volunteers" not active duty regulars like Mexico.

Remember Polk offered to buy the disputed land from Mexico first, but Farias refused. Then the Northern Army of Mexico attacked a U.S. output killing dozens and taking prisoners. It was only after this that the US declared war. Santa Anna was then allowed to return, he was actually in political exile. However, he was dealing with the US under the table regarding selling the disputed land to the U.S. at a reasonable price. However, once Santa Anna got back in power he decided full war was the better option (he was going to put on a "show" then seek a quick peace) because he thought he would win and get Texas back. Otherwise he would of taken the land sale (which was only for the disputed lands in todays Texas and Oklahoma not all of the modern day Southwest). Then consolidate his power by dealing with the constant rebellions in the South of Mexico and crushing the Liberals (Santa Anna political opponents).

I learnt from your posts, so thank you.

You seem to have a good idea of the history behind that war.

You are not making yourself look good with some points in your writing. I make some mistakes, but would not these.

‘Must of’ means nothing. It is a misinterpretation of ‘must’ve’, a contraction of ‘must have’.

The past tense of ‘lead’ is ‘led’. ‘Lead’, when it has the same pronunciation as ‘led’, is the name of a heavy metal and the element of which it is made.

In your next post, you misused ‘its’. ‘Its’ is a posessive pronoun. The contraction of ‘it is’ is ‘it’s’.

“Consider Eduardo and Maria, Salvadorans living in San Salvador in a dirt-floored cinderblock hut. They have little money, not because they are stupid or lazy but because there are no jobs. Their two kids cry at night because they are hungry. Their only hope, they decide, is for Eduardo to try to get to the US, a ballsy and dangerous idea, send money back, and try to figure out how to get Maria and the kids into the US.”

Yeah, now consider Marcus, James, Lamont, Shanequa, and Monique, African Americans who could once find menial jobs to match their meager skills at places like the Four Seasons but are now lucky if they can be bothered to take a job at McDonalds, as a life of crime or welfare dependence is now about the only avenue of hope that these third, fourth, or fifth generation Americans … Sorry, Fred … US Citizens have because they have been supplanted by even cheaper low-skilled new arrivals like Eduardo.

Seriously, one of my European colleagues noticed a few years back that all the nice black ladies who used to clean the hotel at which he stayed appeared to have been replaced entirely by Mestizos. Yep, you would think we masters of the Universe don’t notice these things, but we have to be cognizant of why we might be subjected to an even higher risk of violent crime, not only from the worst of the new arrivals but also from those their kinder, gentler sisters and brothers push out of their piece of the American Pie.

Mexico was compensated for the land it lost ($15 M in 1850, about $7 BN today after inflation), so "stolen" might not be quite the proper word. That was probably close to fair market value for unimproved, mostly uninhabited land. The fact that Mexico was compensated at all is remarkable, because for much of history, I think the idea of compensating the loser is comparatively rare. I don't think Stalin and Hitler paid the Poles when they divvied up Poland in 1939.

Anyway, the simple fact that the immigration issue is so emotional on both sides suggests that maybe there are too many immigrants? If the numbers were not so large, the stakes would not be as high and the issue could be rationally debated like any other. No one flips out when discussing the Energy Department's budget after all.

So if you are forced out of your home by eminent domain to build a casino, resort or shopping village rather than being allowed to freely contract for what you consider to be a fair value from the developers and not that which is imposed on you by a coercive force, you won’t feel like you were cheated, right?

If I"m not wrong, Mexico became an independent nation in 1821. The Mexican War took place about 25 years later, did the Mexican government really have valid title to the lands they stole, through armed insurrection, from the Spanish crown? Which the Spanish crown took through force of arms from the native population? I realize, that to most people, facts don't matter, like Trump saying that "some" illegal aliens from Mexico were rapists, is changed to "all" illegal Mexicans are rapists, or Trump's blaming both sides in Charlottseville for violence is the same thing as being a card carrying racist Nazi, but facts are still facts.

Wow, you’re going to swing that cat in a country that theoretically had a well established rule of law under the British Crown but chose to use force to deprive those landholders of their just and proper title?

Well... yes, and the British Crown had every right to dispute the American revolution. Of course the colonists could argue that a German king had no rights over a British subject and those of us whose ancestors were forced to flee when the upstart Tudors decided to change our religion could even claim that no Protestant had legal right to the British throne. In the end, might makes right, I think, everywhere. No matter how much we want to stomp our feet and cry it's not fair.

Well... yes, and the British Crown had every right to dispute the American revolution. Of course the colonists could argue that a German king had no rights over a British subject and those of us whose ancestors were forced to flee when the upstart Tudors decided to change our religion could even claim that no Protestant had legal right to the British throne. In the end, might makes right, I think, everywhere. No matter how much we want to stomp our feet and cry it's not fair.

Stashed in the National Archives in London’s leafy suburb of Kew are hundreds of boxes of documents marked T71. Each of the sepia-coloured sheets inside them holds handwritten details of estates and slaves, including how much each “negro” was worth, creating the most extensive known paper trail of slave owners in the UK’s former colonies.

For 170 years, the papers remained unexamined, allowing companies, families and institutions that knowingly profited from slavery to conceal their links to the trade and keeping those who were unaware of them in ignorance…..

Not so simple. In fact, in the times of Bartolomeo de las Casas, Spain had an agreement with Portugal NOT to compete with the Portuguese in the West African trade/colonies, i.e. the source of black slaves was closed to the Spanish. Later the spanish "latafundistas" complained that they were at a commercial disadvantage because they did not have Africn slaves.

Sorry I can read it and kind of understand the Portuguese of Portugal, but suffer with Portuguese. We lose a lot by not being able to read in different languages. Comparing english wiki with spanish or german wiki is always amusing!

I like Fred, I've read his columns for years, but sometimes I think his problem is that he must spend too much time around right-wing web sites and starts to think that extreme anti-Mexican sentiments are the problem.

I've got two words for you: status quo. The problem that we actually have is not excessive opposition to Mexican immigrants. These are the problems that we actually have:
1. Immigration levels are far too high and not nearly selective enough
2. Enforcement of the law is absurdly lacking
3. Expectations and encouragement of assimilation are lacking
4. Too much geographic concentration is occuring
5. Most importantly - we've actually been going so far as to deny that we even have the right to decide who can come here.

I know that there are many sympathetic cases of individual illegal immigrants. Maybe most of them. I don't blame the immigrants themselves - they didn't set our immigration policy or lack thereof - they're just responding to it. This is a public policy issue that affects the future of the country. We can't let sympathy for individuals prevent us from fixing these large-scale problems.

Excellent comment. Succinctly sums up the larger picture in its entirety. Thanks much.

So while it might be fair to say that America “stole” the lands, they really weren’t much more than empty desert…

Ron,

Question: suppose Canada had "stolen" Minnesota at the same time. Since there were no more than 6,000 "Americans" people living there at the time, do you really think Americans today would be indifferent to this? ("We've really got no cause to complain, after all it was only unpopulated forest land")

Canada can have Minnesota right now if they want it. I will throw in Vermont, Maine, New York , Connecticut and Massachusetts. But they have to keep the Somalis and New York City.

It used to be a good way for Americans to pick up some extra money in the late summer/early fall. I did it in high school. I knew tradesmen who would work the tobacco fields after the summer construction boom started to wind down. But now that wealth is sent out of Kentucky and the US.

Maybe Eduardo would be better served trying to grow a crop in his native land. After all, it is a jungle, plants will grow there.

Didn't read past the first few paragraphs. If Mexico hates us so much, why do so many move here.
Even this poor White trash deplorable learned about the mex amer war. What Fred doesn't know is that when General Scott conquered Mexico City he was met by the powers that be who asked General Scott if he would like to be king of Mexico. He declined.

The Mexican powers that be and many Americans wanted to incorporate Mexico as US territory and then one mega state or several smaller states.

It never happened because slavery was illegal in Mexico and the southern states didn't want another non slave territory.
The Mexican equivalent of PBS has documentaries about this. Every time it's on TV Mexicans make numerous jokes " how much better life in Mexico would be if we had become part of the US back then.

My thing is affirmative action. That is why I object to any and all non white immigrants who are entitled to affirmative action jobs the day they arrive.

If Mexico is so great, stay there.

On the other hand, Mexico treats its native citizens a lot better than the US does. Mexico doesn't give government jobs to unqualified foreigners who can't speak the language. Mexico never passed a law requiring employers to hire non Mexican foreigners.

And the Mexican school and university system doesn't teach Mexican students that Mexico and its natives are the cause only cause of every problem in the world. Mexican schools and colleges don't teach that native Mexicans are the cancer of the world and should be exterminated.

That was a very confusing time in Mexican history since they went through a period of being French (Napoleon), to being declared independent (1821) to finally being accepted as independent by Spain (1836). But remember that the first university in North America was in Mexico (1550s, about 80 years before Harvard). Also remember that Mexicans were very united when Wilson invaded Veracruz (and our troops then had to be rescued by Brazil). Lots of english language sites, but always interesting to read sources from the other side.

Also remember that a substantial proportion of the “immigrants” to the US are in fact not Mexican, but Central American. As for the reasons, see the links in comment 23:
“” Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras – and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of “our” mainstream media protects Americans from knowing. “”

Napoleon did conquer and occupy Spain, not Mexico for 1807 to 1814. But that occupation had little effect on Mexico. The Spanish territories in Latin America were run by the natives and needed little direction from Spain. So the occupation of Spain by Napoleon had little effect on Mexico and the rest of Latin America as Napoleon paid no attention to them.

I don't see how Napoleons brief occupation of Spain had anything to do with the Mexican American war 34 years later. Or that it had anything to do with the American landing in Veracruz 100 years after the French occupation forces were driven out of Spain.

So Fred, do you have anything to offer besides treacly anecdotes? You sound like Barack Obama talking about Aunt Zeituni, and your column—with its creative take on facts and schmaltzy emotional manipulation—is nothing but another political screed in the same genre as The Audacity of Hope.

You argue like a damn woman. If you aren’t telling sob stories, you’re needling your opponents by tagging them with all sorts of opinions and beliefs they never held or expressed, but now must perforce defend lest the failure to do so seem like capitulation to your nonsense.

Just continue to hide out in Mexico, concealing your cowardice behind a barrage of articles designed to masquerade as clever observations. We both know that deep inside you’re nothing but a little punk. You don’t deserve the courtesy of an argument.

I’d like to see a statute like that honoring the 12-year-old Hitlerjugend, who died trying to protect their mothers and sisters from the rapists of the Red Army. Instead there are still huge memorials to the rapists. But you really can’t blame the rapists, it was all the just the end result of the thirty-year Anglo-American war to subjugate and destroy economically overly competitive Germany. Now Germany is reliable, neutered American vassal state.

Herbert Hoover on how FDR’s men Bullitt and Joseph Kennedy (in his case somewhat reluctantly) bullied Britain into making the Polish blank check guarantees of March 1939 (which they knew they could know nothing to fulfill) and pushed Poland to refuse to negotiate with Germany over the long-standing Danzig and Corridor disputes:

There was nothing in there about doing anything to destroy Germany. Even if those US guarantees to Britain, France, and Poland were correct, that doesn't mean that the US was pushing for war with Germany and it's destruction. Prior to the start of war it was widely accepted that France had the best army in the world and with Britain's navy and the ability to reinforce Poland, the idea was more likely to contain Hitler and keep the peace - something that would have worked out well for all of western Europe if only Hitler had some sense and stopped when he was ahead.

Not so simple. In fact, in the times of Bartolomeo de las Casas, Spain had an agreement with Portugal NOT to compete with the Portuguese in the West African trade/colonies, i.e. the source of black slaves was closed to the Spanish. Later the spanish "latafundistas" complained that they were at a commercial disadvantage because they did not have Africn slaves.

“Actually the Pope gave the portuguese (jews) monopoly rights for the slave trade. The commonality of slave trading by Portugal and Britain is one of the “ties that bind” between the two countries.”

Your source does not make that specific reference. It only indicates that the Pope granted Portugal
the liberty to procures slaves from West Africa.

Furthermore, the source claims “It is important to understand that the majority of the men, women, and children that were sold to the Europeans during the trans-atlantic slave trade were the Biblical Israelites / Hebrews/ Jews.”

It would appear the source is claiming that Europeans were squarely responsible for enslaving…wait for it…black Jews.

“How anybody can “buy” a human being for a motley collection of a bottle of rum, a teapot and a thread of glass beads, and still call himself “civilised” and a “Christian”, numbs the mind.”

How you can repeatedly misrepresent the truth when it comes to the slave trade is amazing. Are you able to call yourself “civilized” and a “Christian” in light of this fact?

Your source only indicates Jewish involvement, which is acknowledged. But Hugh Thomas himself stated, “If one is looking for villains in this matter, and some are, one should certainly indeed look at royal families more severely than at Jewish ones: I am partly thinking of the rulers of Benin; the kings of Ashanti, Congo, and Dahomey; and the Vili rulers of Loango, who sold great numbers of slaves over many generations, but also of monarchs in Europe, such as one of my own heroes, Ferdinand the Catholic, king of Aragon. “Athlete of Christ,” as he was named by the pope, he gave the first license to carry slaves on a large scale to the New World, since he wished them to extract gold from the mines of Santo Domingo. But, then, perhaps Ferdinand cannot be blamed specially for agreeing to the transfer of slaves from one part of his dominions to another, for his agents seem to have bought the Africans concerned in Seville, they having been carried there by merchants of Lisbon such as Bartolommeo Marchionni. Like everyone in his age, Ferdinand would have supposed that, unpleasant though it might be to be a slave, to be owned by a Christian master was infinitely better than being a subject of an infidel. One could find King John III of Portugal responsible for an even more dangerous innovation for he, in 1530, agreed that slaves from Africa might be taken direct to the Americas. And how can we exclude the Sun King himself, Louis XIV, from our selective castigation, for his ministers agreed to pay a bounty for every slave delivered to the New World — a bounty that was still being paid in 1790, the year when Thomas Clarkson, in Paris to publicize the cause of abolition, was told by the minister, Necker, recently recalled to power, that he dared not show the diagram of how slaves were stowed on the ship Brookes of Liverpool to the Sun King’s successor-but-one, Louis XVI, because it would distress him too much. Still, historians should not look for villains.”

We could even include Cromwell, who let the jews back into Britain in an epoch where the native Brits were producing first-class results (Shakespeare, Newton). So Cromwell is the origin of the Brit slave financiers/traders.

It sounds like Freddy is saying that his dearly beloved “messicans” have justifiable historical grievances against the eternally wicked white Anglos. The history of the two peoples and nations has been marked by American Anglo aggressiveness and capriciousness towards the innocent, pacifistic and unassuming messicans.

Never mind Pancho Villa’s violent cross border raids to rob and kill Anglos which precipitated General “Black Jack” Pershing’s punitive expedition into Mexico. And never mind that the “stolen” lands of the American southwest were acquired legally and monetarily via the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Gadsen purchase.

He admits that many Mexicans have hard feelings and varying degrees of revanchism, just like wicked white nationalists and race realists claim. But in other articles he says that this will not lead to discord between Anglos and Mexicans in America even when there’s evidence to the contrary. At some point he’ll need to make up his mind.

The difference between the Anglo manifest destiny of the 19th century and Fred’s claims of Mexican manifest destiny today is that the former were colonizing a lawless, largely uninhabited land. They weren’t breaking into a nation with definable borders, a central government and laws to get on the dole, get a job that pays 5x the average wage in their home country or a combination of both.

"The difference between the Anglo manifest destiny of the 19th century and Fred’s claims of Mexican manifest destiny today is that the former were colonizing a lawless, largely uninhabited land. "

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless. And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited...by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

Mission failure, Fred. I would be OK with zero immigration, yet, your post didn’t anger me or raise my blood pressure. I know plenty about the Mexican War, partly because I had an ancestor serve in it and partly because I’ve always been interested in history. My minor in college was Spanish. So, no big surprises in your post.

“Their only hope, they decide, is for Eduardo to try to get to the US, a ballsy and dangerous idea…”

Here’s a dangerous and ballsy idea: How about all the “Eduardos” stay in their obviously crappy countries and they enact/force positive change of some kind? The US keeps serving as a release valve which benefits neither country in the long run. Why do we keep siphoning off Latin America’s “best and brightest”? Intelligence and personality traits are at least partly heritable, so we are literally committing a “brain drain” on various Third World countries.

As you well know, Fred, Latin America has enjoyed more than its share of “revolutions”. Revolutions that almost always accomplished nothing. Latin America seems to perpetually be just one more revolution or mass emigration away from solving its problems.

Throw in the drumbeat from racialist sites to the effect that Mexicans are stupid, filthy, criminal, and parasitic, and Trump’s asserting that they are rapists...Latin America has in fact produced a great many writers of the first rank, not to mention philosophy, architecture, and music.

How many rapes and gang-rapes have been committed by Mexicans -illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and citizens- over the last 50 years, the last decade, this year alone? And virtually all of the rapists are Mestizos and pure Amerindians. To say nothing of murders and aggravated assaults, gang-shootings, acts of torture, armed robberies, and other mala in se crimes. Yet Fred joins the left and the likes of McCain and Graham and such in accusing Trump of calling all or most illegal aliens “rapists,” including the women apparently.

Conversely, virtually all the “writers of the first rank,” philosophers, etc., are of pure Spanish descent. And Fred forgot to mention Carlos Fuentes.

“The United States attacked Mexico in a war of territorial acquisition, occupied Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona, and drove south to conquer Mexico City.”

The US did not “drive south” from the Rio Grande to Mexico City. The US armies got as far as Buena Vista in northern Mexico, won a battle there, then retreated back across the Rio Grande. Before railroads, logistics were just too tough to advance on Mexico City from the north. Instead, Scott landed at Veracruz and marched on the City from there, as all invaders from Cortez on had done.

“There is in Guadalajara a large and prominent monument to Los Niños Heroes, the adolescent cadets who marched out to defend Chapultepec as the Americans conquered Mexico City, much as the VMI cadets tried to defend Virginia in the Civil War. Countless Mexican towns have a street called Niños Heroes. They remember.”

As well they should. However, Los Niños Heroes die not exactly “march out.” They fought from the walls of Chapultepec, which was their military academy. As if the VMI candidates had fought to defend VMI itself rather than fighting many miles north.

Fred has gotten only one thing right. They are coming here because there are no jobs down there. The reason for this is that there are not enough white men down there to provide enough jobs for everyone. Every country south of our border that is minority white is, without exception, a third country that they do not want to live in.

People of native American descent are flooding across our borders because this is where the white men, the wealth creators and job creators, are. Their homelands were always south of our borders. The “reconquista” is just one of the many lame excuses they use to justify why they have the right to elbow their way into this country, dump themselves on white men and demand that we provide them a quality of life they cannot provide themselves.

If we do not do this for them to their satisfaction, they scream racism, oppression, marginalization, disenfranchisement and white male privilege. However, when this country becomes minority white, there won’t be enough of us to provide jobs, welfare, food stamps, housing and healthcare for them here either.

I am sorry, but setup of this article is complete revisionist history. It is using 20/20 hindsight and the lopsided power between Mexico and the US today. To make a point that does not match the historical record.

It does not consider what were the "Facts on the Ground" in 1845/1846 actually were. They US had a Peacetime "authorized" army of 10,000. Mexico had almost 20,000 active duty and over 10,000 active Militia. Those forces would of been even larger and better equipped if President Farias of Mexico had not been intentionally undermining the army. Santa Anna was still viewed as the best military mind in the West even after losing to Texas. The Northern Army of Mexico (over 5000 regular and veteran troops) was lead by Mariano Arista, a former Spanish Army officer (so European trained). Nearly all the European powers had Officers embedded in the Mexican army during the war, because they thought Mexico was going to mop the floor with the U.S. who was completely dependent on "volunteers" not active duty regulars like Mexico.

Remember Polk offered to buy the disputed land from Mexico first, but Farias refused. Then the Northern Army of Mexico attacked a U.S. output killing dozens and taking prisoners. It was only after this that the US declared war. Santa Anna was then allowed to return, he was actually in political exile. However, he was dealing with the US under the table regarding selling the disputed land to the U.S. at a reasonable price. However, once Santa Anna got back in power he decided full war was the better option (he was going to put on a "show" then seek a quick peace) because he thought he would win and get Texas back. Otherwise he would of taken the land sale (which was only for the disputed lands in todays Texas and Oklahoma not all of the modern day Southwest). Then consolidate his power by dealing with the constant rebellions in the South of Mexico and crushing the Liberals (Santa Anna political opponents).

variety of points not mentioned:

So called “Mexicans” in the region were all offered US citizenship after the war.

USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in.

Most ‘Mexicans’ are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.
Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
See photo of Mexican Congress.

Much of the SW, though curiously claimed by Mexico, was controlled by either the Comanche or the Apache.

Mexico lost Texas because Santa Anna made himself a dictator and caused revolts all around Mexico.

The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.
The Mexican-American War was provoked by Mexico, which refused to recognize the independence and annexation of Texas, even though the rest of the world and the vast majority of Texans were English speakers who supported joining the USA.
Not only did it provoke the war generally, it fired the first shots, killing 11 of 70 American in a surprise attack with 2000 Mexican soldiers.

Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it’s Mexico they all want to leave.

James K. Polk stole half of Mexico fair and square (and a large swath of Canada without a shot).....and now the Mexicans have stolen it back as moronic cowardly whitey lacks the will to protect and enforce the border. FACT: CA is now down to 37% non-hispanic white according to the US Census Bureau.....get it? Game over. TX, AZ, CO, WA, OR will be the next states to enjoy the Reconquista. Who will rule CA? It certainly won't be the browns.....more likely a loose coalition of the jooies, asians, and assorted "victimized" LGBT perverts.

However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless

Yes, I don't think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America "stole" the lands, they really weren't much more than empty desert...

Yes, I don’t think most people these days realize just how few Mexicans lived in the areas involved. I seem to recall that at the time of the Mex-Am War, there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speaking people in California, and perhaps twice that number in Texas. The sole exception was New Mexico, which I think had something like 50,000 Mexicans. Almost nobody lived in the other territories.

So while it might be fair to say that America “stole” the lands, they really weren’t much more than empty desert…

Sorry, but you set me off. Here is an excerpt from an unpublished blog of mine.

The Mexican flag flew when the Yanquis came, but California was not part of Mexico. Mexicans did not trust Californians. Perhaps the news was just slow in coming, but California still remained loyal to Spain long after the Mexican revolution of 1812. Californians had money for imported wines and shoes, but they had no gun powder.

In 1818 pirates from Buenos Aires attacked Monterey. These pirates raised the flag of Argentina. After they sacked and burned the town, they went home. Californians reacted by moving inland. They left the coastal areas wild and deserted to convince pirates that there was nothing worth taking.

California began to fly the flag of Mexico in 1822. In 1842, pirates from New England raided Monterey. They raised the flag of the United States. Instead of pillaging, they apologized and went home.

In 1846 more Yanqui pirates came. Instead of going home, they occupied all our harbors. “The Navy wanted a port on the west coast,” was the way my father explained it.

Then, as now, there were many different cultures. There were Spanish. There were Portuguese. There were Chinese. There were Russians. There were Swiss and Argentines. There were Tory refugees from the war of 1812. There were black men who lived here in freedom. John Brown’s widow followed the underground railroad to California, and she is buried here.

The largest group of people were the aboriginal inhabitants. South of San Francisco these people were settled by the Spanish, and the Spanish language replaced the gaggle of tongues which preceded it. Us Anglos alternately call them Mexican, Hispanic, or Latino but they do not fit the categories we make for them. They are not from Mexico nor are they from Spain. They are Spanish-speaking descendants of various aboriginal peoples and a few European settlers. In truth, they are Californians.

In the northern and eastern areas the first Europeans were not from Spain. There were Russians at Fort Ross, British at Eureka, Italian Swiss at ASTI, Italians at Williams, and German speakers in the areas around Sutter’s fort at what is now Sacramento. Although there was no systematic effort to teach them, Indians in each of those areas learned the language of the local settlers.

The new Yanqui conquistadores were not immediately acclaimed. People fought back all over Alta California. When they had gunpowder, they fought with guns. Mostly they fought with spears, swords, and arrows. They fought bravely, and they won battles. The largest revolt was in Los Angeles, where the Pueblo was retaken and held for three months. Californians were convinced to put down their arms by the promise of a bicultural state which respected traditional culture and property rights. This is why our constitution and laws are written in both Spanish and English.

On November 13, 1849 selected areas under US control had a chance to vote for the new constitution. A total of 12,061 votes were cast for union, and 811 votes were cast against it.

The Yankee census had run to fifteen thousand. This number was actually an estimate made by the US Navy expedition of 1841. This expedition avoided concentrations of Indians, and it never went farther south than San Jose. They note deserted and ruined buildings, but they do not seem to realize that Californians deliberately avoided this large party of armed men.

Eleven years earlier, a Mexican census counted 23,476 Spanish speaking soldiers and men in the presidios, missions and ranchos. At that time, most Californians did not speak Spanish, even in the narrow coastal region canvassed by the Mexicans. This strip stretched only to the north side of the San Francisco Bay. The State of California is roughly eight times larger.

In the first official census of 1850, the population of California jumped to 92,597. This was more than six times the population upon which the constitution of 1849 was based. This larger census still omits population centers in San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Jose and the entire east bay. The census data for these major California cities is officially recorded as being lost. Other areas in the south continued to resist the new government, while vast inland areas were completely unorganized until 1852.

In my blog I have facsimiles of woodcuts, maps and the Mexican census. On particularly telling drawing is a detailed camera obscura drawing from an official US Navy expedition (From the Columbia River to the Sacramento, published 1841). The drawing is labeled “Indians Gambling”, but Californians should recognize it as three Chinese tourists casting the I-Ching. The location is now known as Marysville where a Chinese temple the God of the (now named American) River is still preserved.

Californians are not as liberal as many of the readers here seem to think. We are just conservative to a different history. Would you be game enough to publish my blog?

That was a very confusing time in Mexican history since they went through a period of being French (Napoleon), to being declared independent (1821) to finally being accepted as independent by Spain (1836). But remember that the first university in North America was in Mexico (1550s, about 80 years before Harvard). Also remember that Mexicans were very united when Wilson invaded Veracruz (and our troops then had to be rescued by Brazil). Lots of english language sites, but always interesting to read sources from the other side.

Also remember that a substantial proportion of the "immigrants" to the US are in fact not Mexican, but Central American. As for the reasons, see the links in comment 23:
"" Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras – and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of “our” mainstream media protects Americans from knowing. ""

Excuse me, but the Mexican American war occurred in 1848.

The French invasion and occupation of Mexico occurred in the early 1860s 12 -17 years later.

“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them…. Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

The whole article containing actual papal quotes on slavery can be found here:

That was a very confusing time in Mexican history since they went through a period of being French (Napoleon), to being declared independent (1821) to finally being accepted as independent by Spain (1836). But remember that the first university in North America was in Mexico (1550s, about 80 years before Harvard). Also remember that Mexicans were very united when Wilson invaded Veracruz (and our troops then had to be rescued by Brazil). Lots of english language sites, but always interesting to read sources from the other side.

Also remember that a substantial proportion of the "immigrants" to the US are in fact not Mexican, but Central American. As for the reasons, see the links in comment 23:
"" Perhaps you should study a bit more about who runs places like Honduras – and who in the US helps maintain that control. The kind of censored information that the sect that owns 95% of “our” mainstream media protects Americans from knowing. ""

Napoleon did conquer and occupy Spain, not Mexico for 1807 to 1814. But that occupation had little effect on Mexico. The Spanish territories in Latin America were run by the natives and needed little direction from Spain. So the occupation of Spain by Napoleon had little effect on Mexico and the rest of Latin America as Napoleon paid no attention to them.

I don’t see how Napoleons brief occupation of Spain had anything to do with the Mexican American war 34 years later. Or that it had anything to do with the American landing in Veracruz 100 years after the French occupation forces were driven out of Spain.

I added the reference to the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and the Veracruz story as a kind of counterweight to your story about certain "Mexican" powers-that-be wanting to be "American". The historical relationships between Spain, Mexico and the US are very complex and should not be shoehorned into modern schemata. For example, look up how Galveston Texas got its name. Maybe Mexicans could see Americans as ungrateful hypocrites that don't even know the crucial role Spain played in our war for independence?

Stashed in the National Archives in London’s leafy suburb of Kew are hundreds of boxes of documents marked T71. Each of the sepia-coloured sheets inside them holds handwritten details of estates and slaves, including how much each “negro” was worth, creating the most extensive known paper trail of slave owners in the UK’s former colonies.

For 170 years, the papers remained unexamined, allowing companies, families and institutions that knowingly profited from slavery to conceal their links to the trade and keeping those who were unaware of them in ignorance.....

Your link did not address this claim–“Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.”

You are hard up in your denials. In fact, the sources indicate from the very beginning of the (portuguese) slave trading, jews were prominent and dominant - although some "maranos" tried to hide behind christianity. Furthermore, we now know that slave trading was a major part of the Brit economy in the 1830s (when the Rothschilds already owned much of the Brit economy) and that there are vast records about Brit slave trading that remain to be studied.

In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland - to this day.

It sounds like Freddy is saying that his dearly beloved "messicans" have justifiable historical grievances against the eternally wicked white Anglos. The history of the two peoples and nations has been marked by American Anglo aggressiveness and capriciousness towards the innocent, pacifistic and unassuming messicans.

Never mind Pancho Villa's violent cross border raids to rob and kill Anglos which precipitated General "Black Jack" Pershing's punitive expedition into Mexico. And never mind that the "stolen" lands of the American southwest were acquired legally and monetarily via the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Gadsen purchase.

He admits that many Mexicans have hard feelings and varying degrees of revanchism, just like wicked white nationalists and race realists claim. But in other articles he says that this will not lead to discord between Anglos and Mexicans in America even when there's evidence to the contrary. At some point he'll need to make up his mind.

The difference between the Anglo manifest destiny of the 19th century and Fred's claims of Mexican manifest destiny today is that the former were colonizing a lawless, largely uninhabited land. They weren't breaking into a nation with definable borders, a central government and laws to get on the dole, get a job that pays 5x the average wage in their home country or a combination of both.

“The difference between the Anglo manifest destiny of the 19th century and Fred’s claims of Mexican manifest destiny today is that the former were colonizing a lawless, largely uninhabited land. ”

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless. And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited…by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

Stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, internecine warfare, roasting people alive and other means of torture is other than lawless?

And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited…by Europeans,

You need to crack some real history books. The areas west of the original thirteen colonies were not teeming with Indians. It was a vast and uncharted wilderness with perhaps 1-2 million Indians spread out over the entire landmass.

....who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders

The Indians did a spectacular job of jackbooting each other into submission. The various tribes were perpetually at war with each other often to the point of extermination.

and who had established rules and customs.

Aboriginal rules and customs are not synonymous with a legal system that fosters peace, law and order. So it was ok to scalp vanquished foes or hack off their penis and testicles according to the customs of some tribes. It was the law of the jungle.

So called "Mexicans" in the region were all offered US citizenship after the war.

USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in.

Most ‘Mexicans’ are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande. Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain). See photo of Mexican Congress.

Much of the SW, though curiously claimed by Mexico, was controlled by either the Comanche or the Apache.

Mexico lost Texas because Santa Anna made himself a dictator and caused revolts all around Mexico.

The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.The Mexican-American War was provoked by Mexico, which refused to recognize the independence and annexation of Texas, even though the rest of the world and the vast majority of Texans were English speakers who supported joining the USA.Not only did it provoke the war generally, it fired the first shots, killing 11 of 70 American in a surprise attack with 2000 Mexican soldiers.

Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it's Mexico they all want to leave.

James K. Polk stole half of Mexico fair and square (and a large swath of Canada without a shot)…..and now the Mexicans have stolen it back as moronic cowardly whitey lacks the will to protect and enforce the border. FACT: CA is now down to 37% non-hispanic white according to the US Census Bureau…..get it? Game over. TX, AZ, CO, WA, OR will be the next states to enjoy the Reconquista. Who will rule CA? It certainly won’t be the browns…..more likely a loose coalition of the jooies, asians, and assorted “victimized” LGBT perverts.

Comment: Mexican poverty is the deliberate result of government policy. Mostly because the government created a population explosion, in order to flood the market for labor and drive wages down and profits up. But also: the government allows industrial cartels, that drive costs up, they pay for bailouts of big banks by taking goods and services used by people making two bucks an hour, they embrace race-to-the-bottom trade policies where the only thing that matters is how low wages are…

And the Mexican elites rely on emigration to the United States to keep the lid on.

Now over a century ago, my grandfather came to the US from Sweden. At the time, Sweden was dismally poor, worse than Mexico. The Swedish elites were quite up-front about how they relied on the safety valve of immigration to the US to avoid a revolution or collapse. Immigration from Sweden was cut off… and, faced with having to live in their own borders, the Swedes developed a (for now) stable and prosperous society.

If Mexico no longer had the safety valve of immigration to the US, would Mexico shift its focus from shafting workers to building a better society? Or is the place too far gone, and that nation will collapse into anarchy. I can’t say.

I do suggest that when the people of a nation are forced to live within their borders, when the elites fear that too much poverty could threaten their stake in the nation, that in the long run this tends to lead to better results than an open-borders global commons.

If all the occupations, mexico’s was the shortest. 22 years, what a pathetic argument.

According Fred, Spain, much of Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, most of Germany, Poland and other parts of Europe actually belong to France because they were conquered and occupied by France at various times between 1793 and 1814.

Fred should leave his White part of Mexico and come to California and get a good look at the midget Indian Mexicans and C. Americans the capitalist pigs large and small have imported to overwhelm the state.

He’s probably never seen them in Mexico.

The Mexican ruling class is totally Mexican Spanish in language and culture. But a huge number of them are descendants of Irish, German and other 19th century immigrants.

19th century Latin America had as many European immigrants as N America. They got even more in the early and mid 20th century when Europe devasted itself.

So many Americans are schocked when they vacation in Mexico and see Mexicans are White not pure Indian as the immigrants to tgr US are.

Comment: Mexican poverty is the deliberate result of government policy. Mostly because the government created a population explosion, in order to flood the market for labor and drive wages down and profits up. But also: the government allows industrial cartels, that drive costs up, they pay for bailouts of big banks by taking goods and services used by people making two bucks an hour, they embrace race-to-the-bottom trade policies where the only thing that matters is how low wages are...

And the Mexican elites rely on emigration to the United States to keep the lid on.

Now over a century ago, my grandfather came to the US from Sweden. At the time, Sweden was dismally poor, worse than Mexico. The Swedish elites were quite up-front about how they relied on the safety valve of immigration to the US to avoid a revolution or collapse. Immigration from Sweden was cut off... and, faced with having to live in their own borders, the Swedes developed a (for now) stable and prosperous society.

If Mexico no longer had the safety valve of immigration to the US, would Mexico shift its focus from shafting workers to building a better society? Or is the place too far gone, and that nation will collapse into anarchy. I can't say.

I do suggest that when the people of a nation are forced to live within their borders, when the elites fear that too much poverty could threaten their stake in the nation, that in the long run this tends to lead to better results than an open-borders global commons.

I’ve read that both Norway and Sweden instituted socialism early 20th century because it was the only way to keep the working class from fleeing to America.

"The difference between the Anglo manifest destiny of the 19th century and Fred’s claims of Mexican manifest destiny today is that the former were colonizing a lawless, largely uninhabited land. "

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless. And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited...by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

As I always tell my Jewish friends who start the ” you old stock Americans stole the land from the Indians” cr*p.

“When you go back to the Poland from whence your grand parents came, I’ll go back to the England and France from whence my ancestors came almost 500 years ago.”

Go back to Russia or Poland or whatever Corvinius . I’m sure you can find relatives.

I like Mexicans a great deal and live in a border town where the majority are Mexican.

I agree with a lot of what Fred says here, but one thing to keep in mind is the hypocrisy I see a lot from Mexicans.

Mexicans don't like being called dirty, rapists, low iq, etc. But they do the exact same thing to the Haitians that immigrated to Mexico. Keep in mind that some 80% of women from central America that cross into Mexico end up getting raped my Mexicans. So Americans absolutely treat immigrants better than Mexicans do.

Also, when it comes to racism, who are Mexicans to talk? Mexicans are absolutely as racist if not more racist than any other country. Stereotypes are a huge part of their society.

So yeah, Americans should ease up a little bit on the Mexicans. But let's not let Mexicans off the hook either.

I think you own them 3 “I hate knee-grows” articles, before the next “I love Mexicans”, one. as a matter of fact, if you stick to the 3-1 ratio, I think all but the most ardent Stormfronters* will be satisfied.

(*Although with Antifa shutting down the website, a few of them are sure to matriculate here.)

"The difference between the Anglo manifest destiny of the 19th century and Fred’s claims of Mexican manifest destiny today is that the former were colonizing a lawless, largely uninhabited land. "

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless. And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited...by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless.

Stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, internecine warfare, roasting people alive and other means of torture is other than lawless?

And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited…by Europeans,

You need to crack some real history books. The areas west of the original thirteen colonies were not teeming with Indians. It was a vast and uncharted wilderness with perhaps 1-2 million Indians spread out over the entire landmass.

….who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders

The Indians did a spectacular job of jackbooting each other into submission. The various tribes were perpetually at war with each other often to the point of extermination.

and who had established rules and customs.

Aboriginal rules and customs are not synonymous with a legal system that fosters peace, law and order. So it was ok to scalp vanquished foes or hack off their penis and testicles according to the customs of some tribes. It was the law of the jungle.

"Stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, internecine warfare, roasting people alive and other means of torture is other than lawless?"

You just described European society here. What a decidedly anti-white statement to make.

Regardless, you watched way too many John Ford films. Educate yourself about American Indians, as lack of knowledge regarding their customs is utterly embarrassing.

There was a special significance when it came stealing horses. Horse raiding entailed warriors entering enemy camps at night to procure the best horses next to their owner's home. Successful raids achieved special status--he practice of counting coup, in which a living enemy was touched with the hand or a special stick. This act signified ultimate bravery and bestowed the warrior great prestige. Of course, this practice is no different in nature than the European custom known as sacking and looting.

"You need to crack some real history books. The areas west of the original thirteen colonies were not teeming with Indians. It was a vast and uncharted wilderness with perhaps 1-2 million Indians spread out over the entire landmass."

Vast and unchartered wilderness to Europeans. Your number is on the low end of estimates.

"The Indians did a spectacular job of jackbooting each other into submission. The various tribes were perpetually at war with each other often to the point of extermination."

Archeological and documentary evidence show tremendous changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact, in part due to forced migrations of eastern tribes, due to white manipulation of traditional hostilities, and due to fierce competition for dwindling resources. In other words, context matters here. Prior to European contact, tribal groups had their wars, but not generally to the "point of extermination".

"Aboriginal rules and customs are not synonymous with a legal system that fosters peace, law and order."

"The Lakotas eventually controlled a vast hunting territory stretching from the Platte River north to the Heart River and from the Missouri River west to the Bighorn Mountains. Their highly flexible social and political organization was well suited to the demands of maintaining such an empire. The basic unit of Lakota society was the tiyospaye, a small group of bilaterally related kin, informally led by a headman. Each of the seven Lakota subbands had societies, including akicitas (police) and nacas (civil leaders). Nacas from each of the sub-bands formed a tribal council (Naca Ominicia) with executive committees commonly known as wicasa (shirt wearers). When the seven sub-bands congregated each summer for the Sun Dance, the nacas of each of the seven sub-bands constituted a national council. Holy men and medicine people were also consulted on important matters, revealing the centrality of Lakota spiritual and ceremonial life."

Fred should read the life and times of Kit Carson which very much backs up the remarks of Clyde Wilson.

There’s a US Army base in Colorado named after Kit Carson, where I attended Mass yesterday at the nondenominational chapel on Nelson. The priest was from Africa, and I hope immigrants like him will help preserve our Christian civilization.

"The difference between the Anglo manifest destiny of the 19th century and Fred’s claims of Mexican manifest destiny today is that the former were colonizing a lawless, largely uninhabited land. "

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless. And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited...by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

Hey Mr. Jew — what a burden you must bear, how can you stand to live among us white Euro devils.

You being so righteous, good, and honorable, – you need to move to Israel and complain about the current day theft of Palestinian land by your people.

Think Peace — Art

p.s. Condemning yesterday’s events by today’s standards is the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs.

p.s. Justifying today’s misdeeds by yesterday’s misdeeds is also the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs.

"Hey Mr. Jew — what a burden you must bear, how can you stand to live among us white Euro devils."

I'm not Jewish, nor do I portray one on TV. Labeling a person who comments on a blog "a Jew" merely on a hunch, without any specific evidence, is the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs. If that makes you feelz better about yourself, more power to you!

I'd like to see a statute like that honoring the 12-year-old Hitlerjugend, who died trying to protect their mothers and sisters from the rapists of the Red Army. Instead there are still huge memorials to the rapists. But you really can't blame the rapists, it was all the just the end result of the thirty-year Anglo-American war to subjugate and destroy economically overly competitive Germany. Now Germany is reliable, neutered American vassal state.

British MP on the Germanophobic origins of the Great war:https://foseti.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/review-of-how-diplomats-make-war-by-francis-neilson/

Herbert Hoover on how FDR's men Bullitt and Joseph Kennedy (in his case somewhat reluctantly) bullied Britain into making the Polish blank check guarantees of March 1939 (which they knew they could know nothing to fulfill) and pushed Poland to refuse to negotiate with Germany over the long-standing Danzig and Corridor disputes:http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

Respected mainstream liberal Jewish Zionist historian on how FDR started the general European war in 1939-but it was a good thing:https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1G7H48SQQAXD8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0471033413

There was nothing in there about doing anything to destroy Germany. Even if those US guarantees to Britain, France, and Poland were correct, that doesn’t mean that the US was pushing for war with Germany and it’s destruction. Prior to the start of war it was widely accepted that France had the best army in the world and with Britain’s navy and the ability to reinforce Poland, the idea was more likely to contain Hitler and keep the peace – something that would have worked out well for all of western Europe if only Hitler had some sense and stopped when he was ahead.

It would have been a good plan except nobody even remotely tried to reinforce Poland, or even had any decent plan for doing so, or even tried to mount a decent diversionary attack somewhere else to force the Germans to recall troops from Poland.

Stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, internecine warfare, roasting people alive and other means of torture is other than lawless?

And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited…by Europeans,

You need to crack some real history books. The areas west of the original thirteen colonies were not teeming with Indians. It was a vast and uncharted wilderness with perhaps 1-2 million Indians spread out over the entire landmass.

....who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders

The Indians did a spectacular job of jackbooting each other into submission. The various tribes were perpetually at war with each other often to the point of extermination.

and who had established rules and customs.

Aboriginal rules and customs are not synonymous with a legal system that fosters peace, law and order. So it was ok to scalp vanquished foes or hack off their penis and testicles according to the customs of some tribes. It was the law of the jungle.

“Stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, internecine warfare, roasting people alive and other means of torture is other than lawless?”

You just described European society here. What a decidedly anti-white statement to make.

Regardless, you watched way too many John Ford films. Educate yourself about American Indians, as lack of knowledge regarding their customs is utterly embarrassing.

There was a special significance when it came stealing horses. Horse raiding entailed warriors entering enemy camps at night to procure the best horses next to their owner’s home. Successful raids achieved special status–he practice of counting coup, in which a living enemy was touched with the hand or a special stick. This act signified ultimate bravery and bestowed the warrior great prestige. Of course, this practice is no different in nature than the European custom known as sacking and looting.

“You need to crack some real history books. The areas west of the original thirteen colonies were not teeming with Indians. It was a vast and uncharted wilderness with perhaps 1-2 million Indians spread out over the entire landmass.”

Vast and unchartered wilderness to Europeans. Your number is on the low end of estimates.

“The Indians did a spectacular job of jackbooting each other into submission. The various tribes were perpetually at war with each other often to the point of extermination.”

Archeological and documentary evidence show tremendous changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact, in part due to forced migrations of eastern tribes, due to white manipulation of traditional hostilities, and due to fierce competition for dwindling resources. In other words, context matters here. Prior to European contact, tribal groups had their wars, but not generally to the “point of extermination”.

“Aboriginal rules and customs are not synonymous with a legal system that fosters peace, law and order.”

“The Lakotas eventually controlled a vast hunting territory stretching from the Platte River north to the Heart River and from the Missouri River west to the Bighorn Mountains. Their highly flexible social and political organization was well suited to the demands of maintaining such an empire. The basic unit of Lakota society was the tiyospaye, a small group of bilaterally related kin, informally led by a headman. Each of the seven Lakota subbands had societies, including akicitas (police) and nacas (civil leaders). Nacas from each of the sub-bands formed a tribal council (Naca Ominicia) with executive committees commonly known as wicasa (shirt wearers). When the seven sub-bands congregated each summer for the Sun Dance, the nacas of each of the seven sub-bands constituted a national council. Holy men and medicine people were also consulted on important matters, revealing the centrality of Lakota spiritual and ceremonial life.”

So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn't even bothered to invent the wheel. We won and they lost. That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man.

You just described European society here. What a decidedly anti-white statement to make.

Oh, so as I write these words Europeans in Europe and America are stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, roasting people alive, scalping and killing each other? No wonder you aren't taken seriously by most commenters on this site.

You are free to leave the U.S. for a third world nation or go live on an Indian reservation if you have an axe to grind with how the Europeans founded this country, but I doubt you have the courage to live up to your ideals.

Regardless, you watched way too many John Ford films. Educate yourself about American Indians, as lack of knowledge regarding their customs is utterly embarrassing.

And your rendition of Indian horse stealing as some kind of ritual of an advanced people and civilization is side splitting. I think John Ford films are historically more accurate.

Vast and unchartered wilderness to Europeans. Your number is on the low end of estimates.

Sprawling population centers with skyscrapers to Corvinky and non-Europeans? I supposed you're next going to claim the Amerindians invented physics and had a space program.

Archeological and documentary evidence show tremendous changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact

White settlers did employ divide and conquer tactics against the Indians. This strategy was adopted after whites had suffered massacres at the hands of Indians such as at Jamestown in 1644 and a much bigger death toll in Connecticut in 1675. But Indians were killing each other long before Europeans arrived in N. America. The evidence isn't hard to find but you obviously refuse to look since it will explode your fact averse worldview about European colonialism in N. America.

Perhaps among the Lakotas, but if you think they were the only Indian tribe in the plains you need to educate yourself. Their customs didn't extend to rival tribes such as the Pawnee, Crow, Omaha or Blackfeet and others who they sometimes waged merciless war against irrespective of what the wicked white man did.

by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

Hey Mr. Jew --- what a burden you must bear, how can you stand to live among us white Euro devils.

You being so righteous, good, and honorable, - you need to move to Israel and complain about the current day theft of Palestinian land by your people.

Think Peace --- Art

p.s. Condemning yesterday’s events by today’s standards is the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs.

p.s. Justifying today’s misdeeds by yesterday’s misdeeds is also the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs.

“Hey Mr. Jew — what a burden you must bear, how can you stand to live among us white Euro devils.”

I’m not Jewish, nor do I portray one on TV. Labeling a person who comments on a blog “a Jew” merely on a hunch, without any specific evidence, is the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs. If that makes you feelz better about yourself, more power to you!

It wasn’t the military that finally brought down the Comanches. It was the buffalo hunters and buffalo skinners hunting the buffalo almost to extinction for their hides and leaving huge piles of skinned corpses rotting in the sun. This deprived the Comanche of their most important economic resource and cost them control of a huge area of the plains. The Comanche were some of the best light cavalry in the world, and usually the best the U.S. military could do was to fight them to a draw. The Comanche people today still take great pride in the military prowess of their ancestors, and rightfully so.

A great deal of good in what you say, Fred. However, that territory taken over in the Mexican War was mostly empty or lawless and in places like California there were already more norteamericanos than Mexicans and the Mexicans there were not at all happy with Mexico City. The Mexicans let Americans into Texas because they could deal with the Comanches which Mexicans had been unable to do for several centuries. And during the conflict before and after the war the Mexicans did not exactly behave like Boy Scouts---massacres, banditry, etc.

While Mr. Reed excoriates the historical ignorance of Americans vis-a-vis Mexico., he relies on that ignorance to make his arguments. At the inception of the Mexican-American war, most foreign experts thought the US was going to be thoroughly thrashed. Mexico had a large, well-equipped, experienced, and supposedly well led army. When hostilities commenced the US army was small, ill-equipped, untried, and didn’t have much of a record of military successes. The War was hardly just a consequence of US belligerence. Borders were in dispute and by US standards Mexico had made some moves that amounted to an invasion. Ultimately, it was the US David that beat the Mexican Goliath. The coward Santa Ana once again sold out his country to save his skin and the rest as they say is history.

Reed mentions the Pershing incursion but neglects to mention that it was in response to a series of cross border raids by Pancho Villa and massacres of American men, women, and children. The Mexican President, Caranza, infuriated Wilson by his refusal to do anything about Villa. Caranza’s excuse was that the on-going race war in Mexico, which Mexicans now refer to a s a revolution, tied his hands. But a country that cannot control its borders in both directions can hardly complain when another country steps in to mend the deficit.

The U.S. was not a David to Mexico's Goliath, though Scott's expedition considered by itself probably was. But Old Fuss and Feathers came through due to his own qualities and Santa Ana's glaring lack of them.

Where does the bible say blacks should not be Catholic priests? Catholic means universal in Greek. Brown Ethiopia became Christian by 300.

Every time I channel surf on Sundays a black Protestant clergyman is preaching. In the United States there are vastly more black Protestant clergy than black Catholic clergy.

Southern Baptist is one of the largest Protestant denominations. It was originally all White. Now it's open to all races and many of their clergy and high level leadership are blacks who work for White parishes for White congregations.

The Catholic Church always intended to be a universal global church. Syrian Catholic monks went to China as early as 300AD. There were Catholic bishops in China all through what were known in Europe as the dark ages and medieval period. Their monthly reports spent 2 years on the Silk Road before they arrived at the Vatican. Those reports are still there in the Vatican.

There is an ancient Roman Catholic community in India that claims their ancestors were converted by St Thomas the apostle. Perhaps, but their records go back 2,000 years.

Given the thousands and thousands of black Protestant clergy in this country I think it's strange that a Protestant doesn't approve of the occasional black Catholic priest.

Again, where does the Christian bible say a black can't be a priest? Or does your denomination only read the Hebrew bible Calvin, Knox and the rest of the Puritans. Does it have something to do with the fact that one of the sons of Noah and his wife suddenly turned from a White man into a black African after the flood ended? Yeah right. And the world was created by an old man up in the sky in 6 days. And God tells you to kick your first born child with a slave girl out to die in the desert when your 100 year old self manages to get your 100 year old wife pregnant.

"Stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, internecine warfare, roasting people alive and other means of torture is other than lawless?"

You just described European society here. What a decidedly anti-white statement to make.

Regardless, you watched way too many John Ford films. Educate yourself about American Indians, as lack of knowledge regarding their customs is utterly embarrassing.

There was a special significance when it came stealing horses. Horse raiding entailed warriors entering enemy camps at night to procure the best horses next to their owner's home. Successful raids achieved special status--he practice of counting coup, in which a living enemy was touched with the hand or a special stick. This act signified ultimate bravery and bestowed the warrior great prestige. Of course, this practice is no different in nature than the European custom known as sacking and looting.

"You need to crack some real history books. The areas west of the original thirteen colonies were not teeming with Indians. It was a vast and uncharted wilderness with perhaps 1-2 million Indians spread out over the entire landmass."

Vast and unchartered wilderness to Europeans. Your number is on the low end of estimates.

"The Indians did a spectacular job of jackbooting each other into submission. The various tribes were perpetually at war with each other often to the point of extermination."

Archeological and documentary evidence show tremendous changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact, in part due to forced migrations of eastern tribes, due to white manipulation of traditional hostilities, and due to fierce competition for dwindling resources. In other words, context matters here. Prior to European contact, tribal groups had their wars, but not generally to the "point of extermination".

"Aboriginal rules and customs are not synonymous with a legal system that fosters peace, law and order."

"The Lakotas eventually controlled a vast hunting territory stretching from the Platte River north to the Heart River and from the Missouri River west to the Bighorn Mountains. Their highly flexible social and political organization was well suited to the demands of maintaining such an empire. The basic unit of Lakota society was the tiyospaye, a small group of bilaterally related kin, informally led by a headman. Each of the seven Lakota subbands had societies, including akicitas (police) and nacas (civil leaders). Nacas from each of the sub-bands formed a tribal council (Naca Ominicia) with executive committees commonly known as wicasa (shirt wearers). When the seven sub-bands congregated each summer for the Sun Dance, the nacas of each of the seven sub-bands constituted a national council. Holy men and medicine people were also consulted on important matters, revealing the centrality of Lakota spiritual and ceremonial life."

So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn’t even bothered to invent the wheel. We won and they lost. That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man.

The White Man won because he didn't fight fair, not because he was better in a fair fight. He spread disease and ganged up on small tribes. This should be abundantly evident now in a place like Kentucky with all the heroin and meth addicts offing themselves and in rapid downward social mobility, who lack the savage nobility and purity of spirit the Indians at least had.

I’ve lived in the Rockies pretty much all my life. I don’t pretend to be an Indian scholar or anthropologist.

Here in Red Rocks country there are signs telling people not to park their cars too close to the canyon’s edge when sight seeing. Pueblo youths love to dump the cars over the edge. Those same youths will sit behind your care while you brunch, and when you exit the parking space, they roll over and feign injury. Another favorite scam is taking a car for a test run and taking the salesman to the reservation … and keeping the car. THEN when auto dealerships refuse to let Indians take test runs, Jewish attorneys jump in [usually from Santa Fe ] and argue equal protection rights.

Gotta love them Jews.

Oh, and now that they’ve discovered all the human bones in the garbage dumps of the Anazasi, those same Jews are suppressing that discovery in text books – claiming that American Indians are already discriminated against, and in deference to the “ancestors” ….evidence of cannibalism is buried.

Now for the Mexicans…. what to say? Great music and food, bad kids and social behavior. They breed like roaches, and their kids all belong in jail by middle school. Schools in Albuquerque and Santa Fe cannot serve the American kids because the low IQ illegals are so mentally challenged [average IQ of 85] that resources are used to teach English as a second language to children who are not only malnourished, but ineducable. NOT MY WORDS … the ABQ school district.

Now sports programs must be shuttered because there just isn’t any money in a state with a net outflow of population and one of the biggest budgets per child in the nation.

SO — Nobody wants anymore Mexicans OR Indians …. they should have been dealt with back when we could have saved ourselves from our own Charitable instincts….. IMost in the Southwest are out of cheeks to proffer.

Wow, you're going to swing that cat in a country that theoretically had a well established rule of law under the British Crown but chose to use force to deprive those landholders of their just and proper title?

Well… yes, and the British Crown had every right to dispute the American revolution. Of course the colonists could argue that a German king had no rights over a British subject and those of us whose ancestors were forced to flee when the upstart Tudors decided to change our religion could even claim that no Protestant had legal right to the British throne. In the end, might makes right, I think, everywhere. No matter how much we want to stomp our feet and cry it’s not fair.

Wow, you're going to swing that cat in a country that theoretically had a well established rule of law under the British Crown but chose to use force to deprive those landholders of their just and proper title?

Well… yes, and the British Crown had every right to dispute the American revolution. Of course the colonists could argue that a German king had no rights over a British subject and those of us whose ancestors were forced to flee when the upstart Tudors decided to change our religion could even claim that no Protestant had legal right to the British throne. In the end, might makes right, I think, everywhere. No matter how much we want to stomp our feet and cry it’s not fair.

Some say that PC targets straight white males. But an attack on white males is an attack on the whole of white race since white race cannot exist without white fathers.
Likewise, an attack on white females is an attack on the whole of white race since whites cannot exist without white mothers.

So, this notion that PC spares white females and only targets white males is bogus. Attack one and it’s also an attack on the other. If someone bashes the left side of your brain, your right side is also useless. If he bashes the right side of your brain, your left becomes useless. Both sides worth together.

PC tries to destroy the white race by driving a wedge between white men and white women. White women are made to feel that they constitute an autonomous group independent of white males. But they wouldn’t exist if not for white fathers.

"Hey Mr. Jew — what a burden you must bear, how can you stand to live among us white Euro devils."

I'm not Jewish, nor do I portray one on TV. Labeling a person who comments on a blog "a Jew" merely on a hunch, without any specific evidence, is the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs. If that makes you feelz better about yourself, more power to you!

I’m not Jewish, nor do I portray one on TV. Labeling a person who comments on a blog “a Jew” merely on a hunch, without any specific evidence, is the work of pseudo-intellectual thugs.

Corvinus — I apologize to you and all who read my comment, for calling you a Jew – you say you are not a Jew – so be it. I am sorry — Art

Usually it is Jews who make the pseudo-intellectual argument that one wrong justifies another wrong. So they condemn America’s centuries old past, to justify their current evil in Palestine.

Seeing your righteousness, perhaps you will condemn their actions in Palestine.

"Stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, internecine warfare, roasting people alive and other means of torture is other than lawless?"

You just described European society here. What a decidedly anti-white statement to make.

Regardless, you watched way too many John Ford films. Educate yourself about American Indians, as lack of knowledge regarding their customs is utterly embarrassing.

There was a special significance when it came stealing horses. Horse raiding entailed warriors entering enemy camps at night to procure the best horses next to their owner's home. Successful raids achieved special status--he practice of counting coup, in which a living enemy was touched with the hand or a special stick. This act signified ultimate bravery and bestowed the warrior great prestige. Of course, this practice is no different in nature than the European custom known as sacking and looting.

"You need to crack some real history books. The areas west of the original thirteen colonies were not teeming with Indians. It was a vast and uncharted wilderness with perhaps 1-2 million Indians spread out over the entire landmass."

Vast and unchartered wilderness to Europeans. Your number is on the low end of estimates.

"The Indians did a spectacular job of jackbooting each other into submission. The various tribes were perpetually at war with each other often to the point of extermination."

Archeological and documentary evidence show tremendous changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact, in part due to forced migrations of eastern tribes, due to white manipulation of traditional hostilities, and due to fierce competition for dwindling resources. In other words, context matters here. Prior to European contact, tribal groups had their wars, but not generally to the "point of extermination".

"Aboriginal rules and customs are not synonymous with a legal system that fosters peace, law and order."

"The Lakotas eventually controlled a vast hunting territory stretching from the Platte River north to the Heart River and from the Missouri River west to the Bighorn Mountains. Their highly flexible social and political organization was well suited to the demands of maintaining such an empire. The basic unit of Lakota society was the tiyospaye, a small group of bilaterally related kin, informally led by a headman. Each of the seven Lakota subbands had societies, including akicitas (police) and nacas (civil leaders). Nacas from each of the sub-bands formed a tribal council (Naca Ominicia) with executive committees commonly known as wicasa (shirt wearers). When the seven sub-bands congregated each summer for the Sun Dance, the nacas of each of the seven sub-bands constituted a national council. Holy men and medicine people were also consulted on important matters, revealing the centrality of Lakota spiritual and ceremonial life."

You just described European society here. What a decidedly anti-white statement to make.

Oh, so as I write these words Europeans in Europe and America are stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, roasting people alive, scalping and killing each other? No wonder you aren’t taken seriously by most commenters on this site.

You are free to leave the U.S. for a third world nation or go live on an Indian reservation if you have an axe to grind with how the Europeans founded this country, but I doubt you have the courage to live up to your ideals.

Regardless, you watched way too many John Ford films. Educate yourself about American Indians, as lack of knowledge regarding their customs is utterly embarrassing.

And your rendition of Indian horse stealing as some kind of ritual of an advanced people and civilization is side splitting. I think John Ford films are historically more accurate.

Vast and unchartered wilderness to Europeans. Your number is on the low end of estimates.

Sprawling population centers with skyscrapers to Corvinky and non-Europeans? I supposed you’re next going to claim the Amerindians invented physics and had a space program.

Archeological and documentary evidence show tremendous changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact

White settlers did employ divide and conquer tactics against the Indians. This strategy was adopted after whites had suffered massacres at the hands of Indians such as at Jamestown in 1644 and a much bigger death toll in Connecticut in 1675. But Indians were killing each other long before Europeans arrived in N. America. The evidence isn’t hard to find but you obviously refuse to look since it will explode your fact averse worldview about European colonialism in N. America.

Perhaps among the Lakotas, but if you think they were the only Indian tribe in the plains you need to educate yourself. Their customs didn’t extend to rival tribes such as the Pawnee, Crow, Omaha or Blackfeet and others who they sometimes waged merciless war against irrespective of what the wicked white man did.

"Oh, so as I write these words Europeans in Europe and America are stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, roasting people alive, scalping and killing each other? No wonder you aren’t taken seriously by most commenters on this site."

Your description of Native American tribal customs overall is woefully devoid of context.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/empire-of-the-comanche/

"There is no nonviolent theory of the international relations or of the state, but theorists of these topics do not go into detail about the cruelty and brutality of the necessary violence. Gwynn stresses the Comanches’ cruelty, but the Comanches did not do to Texans anything that Europeans did to each other during, e.g., the Thirty Years War or the Inquisition. The Comanche atrocities are not about “barbarism”. What they did in Texas, an area whose control was being contested, were within the normal range of violence for the various earlier empires, nations, and states and must be viewed in that larger context. On the blood-drenched stage of world history Comanche violence was well within the normal range . We are more aware of the Comanche violence because the victims were people like us, and because the survivors were literate in English. From this same period we have much less testimony from the African victims of the slave trade (or as far as that goes, from 20th-century Congolese), and unsurprisingly the testimony we do have is not as widely circulated."

Furthermore, I offered a factual account of the cultural significance of Indian "horse stealing". If you want to squarely rely on great western Hollywood directors as your source of tribal information, then you are a fool.

"You are free to leave the U.S. for a third world nation or go live on an Indian reservation if you have an axe to grind with how the Europeans founded this country, but I doubt you have the courage to live up to your ideals."

Europeans and non-Europeans helped to found and create our nation.

"White settlers did employ divide and conquer tactics against the Indians. This strategy was adopted after whites had suffered massacres at the hands of Indians such as at Jamestown in 1644 and a much bigger death toll in Connecticut in 1675. But Indians were killing each other long before Europeans arrived in N. America. The evidence isn’t hard to find but you obviously refuse to look since it will explode your fact averse worldview about European colonialism in N. America."

Historical context once again escapes you. Clearly, you were asleep in American history class.

https://mises.org/library/colonial-virginias-relations-indians

"Perhaps among the Lakotas, but if you think they were the only Indian tribe in the plains you need to educate yourself. Their customs didn’t extend to rival tribes such as the Pawnee, Crow, Omaha or Blackfeet and others who they sometimes waged merciless war against irrespective of what the wicked white man did."

The tribes you listed also had forms of government similar to the Lakotas. You're just not that bright.

Fred, I see you are again confused by a blending of legality and sentiment. We are agreed the M-A War was a crime. California must be returned immediately. Hard working residents of latin nations are obliged to hang the elites who keep them in poverty; not flee here. Manifest destiny is history written by the victor. No invader is entitled to that term until he has prevailed. Being sympathetic to the "deserving" I welcome any deserving immigrant if a corresponding "undeserving" US citizen is ejected upon the deserving's arrival. Fred gets to go first.

“California must be returned immediately. ”

Feel free to take Baltimore, Detroit, Ferguson, Compton, Camden, and Newark as well.

While Mr. Reed excoriates the historical ignorance of Americans vis-a-vis Mexico., he relies on that ignorance to make his arguments. At the inception of the Mexican-American war, most foreign experts thought the US was going to be thoroughly thrashed. Mexico had a large, well-equipped, experienced, and supposedly well led army. When hostilities commenced the US army was small, ill-equipped, untried, and didn't have much of a record of military successes. The War was hardly just a consequence of US belligerence. Borders were in dispute and by US standards Mexico had made some moves that amounted to an invasion. Ultimately, it was the US David that beat the Mexican Goliath. The coward Santa Ana once again sold out his country to save his skin and the rest as they say is history.

Reed mentions the Pershing incursion but neglects to mention that it was in response to a series of cross border raids by Pancho Villa and massacres of American men, women, and children. The Mexican President, Caranza, infuriated Wilson by his refusal to do anything about Villa. Caranza's excuse was that the on-going race war in Mexico, which Mexicans now refer to a s a revolution, tied his hands. But a country that cannot control its borders in both directions can hardly complain when another country steps in to mend the deficit.

The U.S. was not a David to Mexico’s Goliath, though Scott’s expedition considered by itself probably was. But Old Fuss and Feathers came through due to his own qualities and Santa Ana’s glaring lack of them.

The Yellow Rose of Texas was a very light skinned lemon yellow brown hair bleached blonde almost White free black prostitute. She was considered beautiful by everyone.

She was Santa Anna's live in girl friend and opium supplier and prepared the pipes for him. She was also a spy for the Texican rebels. Girl friend is one thing, but a competent Santa Ana would have had his spy service check her out.

Anyway, with only 14 years of occupation, Mexico has no revanchist claim to Texas. I hope Corvinius realizes that Spain and Mexico are 2 different countries.

First of all, one of the reasons the population density was so diminished is because all of the natives were wiped out from disease and warfare. Low population density tends to happen when everyone is killed.

Second, density is relative. While you may think 7k people in a territory is a small amount, imagine what the Chinese think when they see sparsely populated Nebrasca.
Siberia does not have near as many people as China or India. That is no right to invade and steal someone's land.

Except that the southwest had been very sparsely populated since well before Europeans arrived there. Very few were “killed”. 7k people in an area that vast would have been an exceedingly small population.

First we had the claim there were fewer than 7000 in California at the time the US moved in. Now you expand this silliness to claim 7000 in the entire southwest.

Cambridge sophomore Richard Henry Dana (Two Years Before the Mast: see project Gutenberg) visited the California coast as a seaman aboard a Yankee trading vessel. He spent December of 1835 anchored in San Francisco Bay. In his classic book he wrote of a beautiful uninhabited bay, and he openly wishes that the United States would occupy it. He remarks that San Francisco is the busiest harbor in California, but he doesn't see the people who buy the goods traded from his ship. Dana never went ashore.

The El Camino Real (Royal Highway) that led from Santa Clara to what is now San Francisco was begun in 1776. It was visible from Dana's ship. But what he didn't see was the parallel path known as Alameda de Las Pulgas. This was the busy road that ordinary Californians used. It lay in the foothills out of sight, and people used it to avoid military, priests, and outsiders.

With typical Yankee egotism, Dana also ridicules the Russian sailors aboard a neighboring vessel for their heavy clothes compared the stylish garb of the Yankees. He does not seem to care that the Russians came from Alaska, while he has crossed the equator. A few pages later he complains about the cold San Francisco weather for which he is unprepared. Dana also boasts of selling inferior merchandise at inflated prices here. He notes that they traded with the Russians, but he doesn't say whether they sold the Russians any second-hand blankets from Yankee hospitals.

Dana's book became a best seller in New England, and it began the myth of the uninhabited California. This myth has been embellished over the years by New York publishers eager to please east coast readers, but there are glaring inconsistencies.

San Francisco Bay was first glimpsed by a hunting party sent out by Gaspar de Portola in 1769. They reportedly remarked: "that they had seen to the northward an enormous sea-arm or inlet shooting as far inland as eye could see toward the southeast; that they made out handsome plains thick with trees; and that the quantity of smokes they had made out rising from all over the flat did not allow them to doubt that the land must have been well peopled with heathen villages."

Seventy-five years later on December 7, 1834, the first elections were held in San Francisco. This was one year before Dana's visit, and a dozen years before the Yankee invasion. By that date the padres recorded over five thousand marriages at Mission Dolores alone; there were also four other missions around the bay. English language histories of San Francisco usually begin with the supposed Yankee trading colony at Yerba Buena, and they ignore the larger community at Mission Dolores just out of sight of their ships. Dana boasts of the superior business acumen of this Yankee enterprise (though he never saw it), but in fact it was the southernmost outpost of the Hudson Bay Company.

In 1849 Colonel James Collier, the first US customs inspector, wrote of his astonishment that the harbor at San Francisco was as busy as Philadelphia. According to the census of 1840, Philadelphia had a population of 93,665. It was a center of commerce for millions of people in surrounding areas.

The port at San Pedro, near Los Angeles. was the equal of San Francisco. Many smaller landings up and down the thousand miles of coastline were also booming.

The population of California in 1849 was closer to a million than the 15,000 claimed by the Yankees. I haven't studied other areas as thoroughly, but I suspect the same drastic under count occurred throughout the Southwest.

There was nothing in there about doing anything to destroy Germany. Even if those US guarantees to Britain, France, and Poland were correct, that doesn't mean that the US was pushing for war with Germany and it's destruction. Prior to the start of war it was widely accepted that France had the best army in the world and with Britain's navy and the ability to reinforce Poland, the idea was more likely to contain Hitler and keep the peace - something that would have worked out well for all of western Europe if only Hitler had some sense and stopped when he was ahead.

It would have been a good plan except nobody even remotely tried to reinforce Poland, or even had any decent plan for doing so, or even tried to mount a decent diversionary attack somewhere else to force the Germans to recall troops from Poland.

"That’s the practical nub of the matter, and Fred is smart enough to know it. Maybe we’d all be better off if Manifest Destiny had never taken hold, but then Mexicans would be clamoring to get across that border."

Replace "manifest destiny" with "colonization", and you would be accurate.

"Fundamentally, it’s the same issues all over the New World: the progeny of imperialists descended from within the Hajnal lines now rule over numerous Third World progeny with different behavioral norms."

I didn't realize that immigrants seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be characterized as possessing "different behavioral norms".

"Our equally cynical and shortsighted elites want their cheap labor and the financial leverage they can stripmine from their low-tier transactions."

You mean our budding entrepreneurs who warmly embrace the basic capitalistic desire to maximize their profits and minimize their costs. I am certain that your upper class lifestyle as a lawyer, with professional wife in tow, has greatly benefitted from such transactions.

"This ends badly."

Yes, for you. You have to go back.

“I didn’t realize that immigrants seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be characterized as possessing “different behavioral norms”.

So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn't even bothered to invent the wheel. We won and they lost. That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man.

The White Man won because he didn’t fight fair, not because he was better in a fair fight. He spread disease and ganged up on small tribes. This should be abundantly evident now in a place like Kentucky with all the heroin and meth addicts offing themselves and in rapid downward social mobility, who lack the savage nobility and purity of spirit the Indians at least had.

who were scalping and slaughtering and genociding and enslaving the women of their neighboring small tribes when Whitey got here. Whitey simply learned some things about cruelty and treachery from the indigenous inhabitants that he never experienced in Europe, and then treated his hosts to a taste of their own 'powerful medicine'.

This should be abundantly evident now in a place like Kentucky with all the heroin and meth addicts offing themselves and in rapid downward social mobility, who lack the savage nobility and purity of spirit the Indians at least had.

OK, which is it, first when Whitey is ascendant, and manifesting his destiny with giant white nads, he's a big meanie, but then when he acts nice and gives everyone EBT and Green Cards- he's all in the sudden lacking a noble spirit.

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless. And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited…by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

By what twisted logic does the history between the Cheyenne and the U.S. gov’t in the mid 180os
entitle half-Spanish half-Aztec or Mayans from Central America the right to waltz in here and demand rights?

If you gots such sympathy for the Sioux et al., then you’d have to agree that the mestizo hordes clambering over the southern border trying to take from Whitey what Whitey took from the Sioux, are receivers of stolen goods. And knowingly receiving stolen goods makes the mestizos as guilty — or even more so — than the original thiefs.

Corvinus, YOU trot on back to the continent yer ancestors hail from and give your house and all your money to some kid on the Crow Reservation. When you’ve done that, let us know.

Corvinius is more obviously a Jew than a Hasid family in full frumpy regalia walking to shul on Saturday morning.

This is his and official Jewish reasoning

All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao)

The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide.

All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions.
The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe.

“It is not an undertaking for someone who has feathers for balls.” – Are you suggesting that the measure of a man isn’t the size of his wallet? My God, next you’ll be saying that Human Rights are more important than Property Rights.

The White Man won because he didn't fight fair, not because he was better in a fair fight. He spread disease and ganged up on small tribes. This should be abundantly evident now in a place like Kentucky with all the heroin and meth addicts offing themselves and in rapid downward social mobility, who lack the savage nobility and purity of spirit the Indians at least had.

He spread disease and ganged up on small tribes.

who were scalping and slaughtering and genociding and enslaving the women of their neighboring small tribes when Whitey got here. Whitey simply learned some things about cruelty and treachery from the indigenous inhabitants that he never experienced in Europe, and then treated his hosts to a taste of their own ‘powerful medicine’.

This should be abundantly evident now in a place like Kentucky with all the heroin and meth addicts offing themselves and in rapid downward social mobility, who lack the savage nobility and purity of spirit the Indians at least had.

OK, which is it, first when Whitey is ascendant, and manifesting his destiny with giant white nads, he’s a big meanie, but then when he acts nice and gives everyone EBT and Green Cards- he’s all in the sudden lacking a noble spirit.

Your link did not address this claim--“Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.”

Another wild goose chase on your part.

You are hard up in your denials. In fact, the sources indicate from the very beginning of the (portuguese) slave trading, jews were prominent and dominant – although some “maranos” tried to hide behind christianity. Furthermore, we now know that slave trading was a major part of the Brit economy in the 1830s (when the Rothschilds already owned much of the Brit economy) and that there are vast records about Brit slave trading that remain to be studied.

In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland – to this day.

"In fact, the sources indicate from the very beginning of the (portuguese) slave trading, jews were prominent and dominant – although some “maranos” tried to hide behind christianity."

That's not the claim you made nor have supported--Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.

The more that you avoid addressing your own claim with evidence, the more that you are engaging in deception.

"Furthermore, we now know that slave trading was a major part of the Brit economy in the 1830s
(when the Rothschilds already owned much of the Brit economy) and that there are vast records about Brit slave trading that remain to be studied."

Which has nothing to do with your original claim. Why are you stalling here?

"In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland – to this day."

Dr. Malcolm Stern investigated the 1790 manuscript census returns of South Carolina. He noted seventy-three heads of households were identified as Jewish. Out of this number, thirty-four owned one or more slaves, to a total of 151 slaves. The only large holdings of slaves were possessed by oe family from Charleston (11), and three families from Georgetown consisting of 21, 11, and 9 slaves.
Jews generally lived in urban areas, so it is other than surprising that they had one or two domestic slaves. 34/73 = 46.6%, which compares to an ownership rate of 34.2% in all South Carolina households in 1790. Note that those 34 Jewish slave-owning households were out of 8,859 total slave-owning households in South Carolina in 1790; that would mean Jews were 0.4% of slave owners here. Furthermore, one could argue that the reason why wealthy Jews owned slaves similar to wealthy non-Jews was due to their shared belief in desiring a lifestyle free from domestic work. In other words, both groups displayed their riches by having slaves take care of the household to enable these groups to enjoy a leisurely lifestyle.

Napoleon did conquer and occupy Spain, not Mexico for 1807 to 1814. But that occupation had little effect on Mexico. The Spanish territories in Latin America were run by the natives and needed little direction from Spain. So the occupation of Spain by Napoleon had little effect on Mexico and the rest of Latin America as Napoleon paid no attention to them.

I don't see how Napoleons brief occupation of Spain had anything to do with the Mexican American war 34 years later. Or that it had anything to do with the American landing in Veracruz 100 years after the French occupation forces were driven out of Spain.

Always good to look at these things from other viewpoints. The convulsions in Spain itself were important in creating the opportunity for revolt in Mexico.

I added the reference to the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and the Veracruz story as a kind of counterweight to your story about certain “Mexican” powers-that-be wanting to be “American”. The historical relationships between Spain, Mexico and the US are very complex and should not be shoehorned into modern schemata. For example, look up how Galveston Texas got its name. Maybe Mexicans could see Americans as ungrateful hypocrites that don’t even know the crucial role Spain played in our war for independence?

Spain helped us a lot in our revolution it's true. That information is never taught even in university level American history courses.
It's my impression that all those independence movements in Latin America began in the late 1780's when Britian lost America as a trading partner and dumping ground for its criminal's and the wretched refuse of the enclosure movement and industrial revolution.

Britian settled Australia for the criminals. All those Latin American revolutions were British instigated. The British needed the massive trade with Latin America to make up for the loss of American trade.

The operation was run from Tortuga. Suddenly the upper classes and striving middle class found Latin American Masonic Liberty equality rights of man clubs popping up in every city.
A major reason for revolting from Spain was removing Spanish laws protecting Indians.
The Monroe Doctrine was a response to the British Masons meddling in Latin America.

The revolutions happened and Spain left.

I always thought that America would never have attempted to seize Mexican territory if the Mexicans hadn't naively followed the English Masons to independence from Spain. Would we have gone against Spain in 1848? It was no longer a great power but still had a powerful navy and a powerful diplomatic service in Europe.

Personally, I don't give a rat's a$$ about the history.

All I care about is affirmative action. As long as Whites are unemployable untouchables by order of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government all non Whites and even the real European Spanish are the enemy of White Americans.
But I can never resist pointing out that Mexico only ruled Texas for 14 years and California,New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado for 26 years.

Spain has much better revanchist claims to those territories than Mexico.

As long as White Americans are denied
jobs and government benefits because we are White and any black, Asian, Spanish or Latin American can get jobs, mortgages and government benefits because of their race or Spanish last name f them and our racist government.

"Actually the Pope gave the portuguese (jews) monopoly rights for the slave trade. The commonality of slave trading by Portugal and Britain is one of the “ties that bind” between the two countries."

Your source does not make that specific reference. It only indicates that the Pope granted Portugal
the liberty to procures slaves from West Africa.

Furthermore, the source claims "It is important to understand that the majority of the men, women, and children that were sold to the Europeans during the trans-atlantic slave trade were the Biblical Israelites / Hebrews/ Jews."

It would appear the source is claiming that Europeans were squarely responsible for enslaving...wait for it...black Jews.

"How anybody can “buy” a human being for a motley collection of a bottle of rum, a teapot and a thread of glass beads, and still call himself “civilised” and a “Christian”, numbs the mind."

How you can repeatedly misrepresent the truth when it comes to the slave trade is amazing. Are you able to call yourself "civilized" and a "Christian" in light of this fact?

Your source only indicates Jewish involvement, which is acknowledged. But Hugh Thomas himself stated, "If one is looking for villains in this matter, and some are, one should certainly indeed look at royal families more severely than at Jewish ones: I am partly thinking of the rulers of Benin; the kings of Ashanti, Congo, and Dahomey; and the Vili rulers of Loango, who sold great numbers of slaves over many generations, but also of monarchs in Europe, such as one of my own heroes, Ferdinand the Catholic, king of Aragon. "Athlete of Christ," as he was named by the pope, he gave the first license to carry slaves on a large scale to the New World, since he wished them to extract gold from the mines of Santo Domingo. But, then, perhaps Ferdinand cannot be blamed specially for agreeing to the transfer of slaves from one part of his dominions to another, for his agents seem to have bought the Africans concerned in Seville, they having been carried there by merchants of Lisbon such as Bartolommeo Marchionni. Like everyone in his age, Ferdinand would have supposed that, unpleasant though it might be to be a slave, to be owned by a Christian master was infinitely better than being a subject of an infidel. One could find King John III of Portugal responsible for an even more dangerous innovation for he, in 1530, agreed that slaves from Africa might be taken direct to the Americas. And how can we exclude the Sun King himself, Louis XIV, from our selective castigation, for his ministers agreed to pay a bounty for every slave delivered to the New World -- a bounty that was still being paid in 1790, the year when Thomas Clarkson, in Paris to publicize the cause of abolition, was told by the minister, Necker, recently recalled to power, that he dared not show the diagram of how slaves were stowed on the ship Brookes of Liverpool to the Sun King's successor-but-one, Louis XVI, because it would distress him too much. Still, historians should not look for villains."

We will leave the villainship to you, hyperbola.

We could even include Cromwell, who let the jews back into Britain in an epoch where the native Brits were producing first-class results (Shakespeare, Newton). So Cromwell is the origin of the Brit slave financiers/traders.

Sir John Hawkins in the 1500s was the first British slave trader. He and his investors and the British crown made a fortune. He sold the slaves to Spanish colonies despite that slavery was illegal in Spanish territory.

Hawkins and Mary and Elizabeth Tudor had nothing to do with Jewish and Portuguese slave traders

Cromwell was more interested in imposing his jihadi religion on England and its colonies especially Ireland. Cromwell dealt in White Irish slaves. Why sail to hot humid disease ridden Africa when there were plenty of Irish a day's sail away?

Yes, it is illegal. No, it is not good for the United States. Yes, immigration should be stopped. But–if you were Eduardo, which would matter more to you, your wife and children, or some law in a remote country where, in any event, a lot of people want you to come and work? What would you do? Would it not be irresponsible not to do it?

Sure. And individual German soldiers were fully justified in trying to kill my father and his buddies during combat in WWII, and my father and his buddies were fully justified in trying to kill those same individual German soldiers during combat in WWII. We’re to infer from this what exactly?

So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn't even bothered to invent the wheel. We won and they lost. That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man.

“So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn’t even bothered to invent the wheel.”

Superior in technology. And the “stone age savages” preferred not to be jackbooted into submission. But that’s just was the way of Europeans at that point in time.

That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man.”

No, it points to the mercifulness of whites who realized the err of their ways. But some people, like yourself, never learn. It’s inborn.

Except that the southwest had been very sparsely populated since well before Europeans arrived there. Very few were "killed". 7k people in an area that vast would have been an exceedingly small population.

First we had the claim there were fewer than 7000 in California at the time the US moved in. Now you expand this silliness to claim 7000 in the entire southwest.

Cambridge sophomore Richard Henry Dana (Two Years Before the Mast: see project Gutenberg) visited the California coast as a seaman aboard a Yankee trading vessel. He spent December of 1835 anchored in San Francisco Bay. In his classic book he wrote of a beautiful uninhabited bay, and he openly wishes that the United States would occupy it. He remarks that San Francisco is the busiest harbor in California, but he doesn’t see the people who buy the goods traded from his ship. Dana never went ashore.

The El Camino Real (Royal Highway) that led from Santa Clara to what is now San Francisco was begun in 1776. It was visible from Dana’s ship. But what he didn’t see was the parallel path known as Alameda de Las Pulgas. This was the busy road that ordinary Californians used. It lay in the foothills out of sight, and people used it to avoid military, priests, and outsiders.

With typical Yankee egotism, Dana also ridicules the Russian sailors aboard a neighboring vessel for their heavy clothes compared the stylish garb of the Yankees. He does not seem to care that the Russians came from Alaska, while he has crossed the equator. A few pages later he complains about the cold San Francisco weather for which he is unprepared. Dana also boasts of selling inferior merchandise at inflated prices here. He notes that they traded with the Russians, but he doesn’t say whether they sold the Russians any second-hand blankets from Yankee hospitals.

Dana’s book became a best seller in New England, and it began the myth of the uninhabited California. This myth has been embellished over the years by New York publishers eager to please east coast readers, but there are glaring inconsistencies.

San Francisco Bay was first glimpsed by a hunting party sent out by Gaspar de Portola in 1769. They reportedly remarked: “that they had seen to the northward an enormous sea-arm or inlet shooting as far inland as eye could see toward the southeast; that they made out handsome plains thick with trees; and that the quantity of smokes they had made out rising from all over the flat did not allow them to doubt that the land must have been well peopled with heathen villages.”

Seventy-five years later on December 7, 1834, the first elections were held in San Francisco. This was one year before Dana’s visit, and a dozen years before the Yankee invasion. By that date the padres recorded over five thousand marriages at Mission Dolores alone; there were also four other missions around the bay. English language histories of San Francisco usually begin with the supposed Yankee trading colony at Yerba Buena, and they ignore the larger community at Mission Dolores just out of sight of their ships. Dana boasts of the superior business acumen of this Yankee enterprise (though he never saw it), but in fact it was the southernmost outpost of the Hudson Bay Company.

In 1849 Colonel James Collier, the first US customs inspector, wrote of his astonishment that the harbor at San Francisco was as busy as Philadelphia. According to the census of 1840, Philadelphia had a population of 93,665. It was a center of commerce for millions of people in surrounding areas.

The port at San Pedro, near Los Angeles. was the equal of San Francisco. Many smaller landings up and down the thousand miles of coastline were also booming.

The population of California in 1849 was closer to a million than the 15,000 claimed by the Yankees. I haven’t studied other areas as thoroughly, but I suspect the same drastic under count occurred throughout the Southwest.

What is your opinion of Cobbett's methods and statements regarding English population of the Middle Ages?

Also, surely by 1870, any reluctance to meet yanqui census takers had dissipated? Yet at that date the population was only 560,247, during a time when it was subject to rapid increase (over 50% by 1880 to 864,964). I'm sure the 7000 number for California is an underestimate, but was it to such an extent that the actual population was between 500K and 1M?

San Mateo county has at least a dozen monuments and preserved campsites to the the Crespi Portola Ortega expedition. Didn't the largest landowner in N California, General Vallejo fight on the American side in 1848? At least what I was taught in school. Maybe the textbooks have changed the story since then.
I read Dana's book. I think he spent some time ashore in Monterey.

But all he ever did was sneer at every one in California but himself and the Yankees back home. He compared everything to the better way things were done back home.

It would have been a good plan except nobody even remotely tried to reinforce Poland, or even had any decent plan for doing so, or even tried to mount a decent diversionary attack somewhere else to force the Germans to recall troops from Poland.

Well that was the mistake the French made. Once Poland was attacked they should have immediately attacked Hitler. Instead they sat around for months during the so-called Sitzkreig.

First we had the claim there were fewer than 7000 in California at the time the US moved in. Now you expand this silliness to claim 7000 in the entire southwest.

Cambridge sophomore Richard Henry Dana (Two Years Before the Mast: see project Gutenberg) visited the California coast as a seaman aboard a Yankee trading vessel. He spent December of 1835 anchored in San Francisco Bay. In his classic book he wrote of a beautiful uninhabited bay, and he openly wishes that the United States would occupy it. He remarks that San Francisco is the busiest harbor in California, but he doesn't see the people who buy the goods traded from his ship. Dana never went ashore.

The El Camino Real (Royal Highway) that led from Santa Clara to what is now San Francisco was begun in 1776. It was visible from Dana's ship. But what he didn't see was the parallel path known as Alameda de Las Pulgas. This was the busy road that ordinary Californians used. It lay in the foothills out of sight, and people used it to avoid military, priests, and outsiders.

With typical Yankee egotism, Dana also ridicules the Russian sailors aboard a neighboring vessel for their heavy clothes compared the stylish garb of the Yankees. He does not seem to care that the Russians came from Alaska, while he has crossed the equator. A few pages later he complains about the cold San Francisco weather for which he is unprepared. Dana also boasts of selling inferior merchandise at inflated prices here. He notes that they traded with the Russians, but he doesn't say whether they sold the Russians any second-hand blankets from Yankee hospitals.

Dana's book became a best seller in New England, and it began the myth of the uninhabited California. This myth has been embellished over the years by New York publishers eager to please east coast readers, but there are glaring inconsistencies.

San Francisco Bay was first glimpsed by a hunting party sent out by Gaspar de Portola in 1769. They reportedly remarked: "that they had seen to the northward an enormous sea-arm or inlet shooting as far inland as eye could see toward the southeast; that they made out handsome plains thick with trees; and that the quantity of smokes they had made out rising from all over the flat did not allow them to doubt that the land must have been well peopled with heathen villages."

Seventy-five years later on December 7, 1834, the first elections were held in San Francisco. This was one year before Dana's visit, and a dozen years before the Yankee invasion. By that date the padres recorded over five thousand marriages at Mission Dolores alone; there were also four other missions around the bay. English language histories of San Francisco usually begin with the supposed Yankee trading colony at Yerba Buena, and they ignore the larger community at Mission Dolores just out of sight of their ships. Dana boasts of the superior business acumen of this Yankee enterprise (though he never saw it), but in fact it was the southernmost outpost of the Hudson Bay Company.

In 1849 Colonel James Collier, the first US customs inspector, wrote of his astonishment that the harbor at San Francisco was as busy as Philadelphia. According to the census of 1840, Philadelphia had a population of 93,665. It was a center of commerce for millions of people in surrounding areas.

The port at San Pedro, near Los Angeles. was the equal of San Francisco. Many smaller landings up and down the thousand miles of coastline were also booming.

The population of California in 1849 was closer to a million than the 15,000 claimed by the Yankees. I haven't studied other areas as thoroughly, but I suspect the same drastic under count occurred throughout the Southwest.

What is your opinion of Cobbett’s methods and statements regarding English population of the Middle Ages?

Also, surely by 1870, any reluctance to meet yanqui census takers had dissipated? Yet at that date the population was only 560,247, during a time when it was subject to rapid increase (over 50% by 1880 to 864,964). I’m sure the 7000 number for California is an underestimate, but was it to such an extent that the actual population was between 500K and 1M?

The missions still exist and probably have excellent pre 1850 records. If any one wants to do the work.

I remember from school that the 7,000 figure was from the 1830 census. Governor Pico wrote that there were so many wagon trains on the Santa Fe trail that the Americans could just walk from wagon to wagon through Arizona to Los Angeles He begged the Mexican government to send troops, settlers and bureaucrats. It didn't.

You just described European society here. What a decidedly anti-white statement to make.

Oh, so as I write these words Europeans in Europe and America are stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, roasting people alive, scalping and killing each other? No wonder you aren't taken seriously by most commenters on this site.

You are free to leave the U.S. for a third world nation or go live on an Indian reservation if you have an axe to grind with how the Europeans founded this country, but I doubt you have the courage to live up to your ideals.

Regardless, you watched way too many John Ford films. Educate yourself about American Indians, as lack of knowledge regarding their customs is utterly embarrassing.

And your rendition of Indian horse stealing as some kind of ritual of an advanced people and civilization is side splitting. I think John Ford films are historically more accurate.

Vast and unchartered wilderness to Europeans. Your number is on the low end of estimates.

Sprawling population centers with skyscrapers to Corvinky and non-Europeans? I supposed you're next going to claim the Amerindians invented physics and had a space program.

Archeological and documentary evidence show tremendous changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact

White settlers did employ divide and conquer tactics against the Indians. This strategy was adopted after whites had suffered massacres at the hands of Indians such as at Jamestown in 1644 and a much bigger death toll in Connecticut in 1675. But Indians were killing each other long before Europeans arrived in N. America. The evidence isn't hard to find but you obviously refuse to look since it will explode your fact averse worldview about European colonialism in N. America.

Perhaps among the Lakotas, but if you think they were the only Indian tribe in the plains you need to educate yourself. Their customs didn't extend to rival tribes such as the Pawnee, Crow, Omaha or Blackfeet and others who they sometimes waged merciless war against irrespective of what the wicked white man did.

“Oh, so as I write these words Europeans in Europe and America are stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, roasting people alive, scalping and killing each other? No wonder you aren’t taken seriously by most commenters on this site.”

Your description of Native American tribal customs overall is woefully devoid of context.

“There is no nonviolent theory of the international relations or of the state, but theorists of these topics do not go into detail about the cruelty and brutality of the necessary violence. Gwynn stresses the Comanches’ cruelty, but the Comanches did not do to Texans anything that Europeans did to each other during, e.g., the Thirty Years War or the Inquisition. The Comanche atrocities are not about “barbarism”. What they did in Texas, an area whose control was being contested, were within the normal range of violence for the various earlier empires, nations, and states and must be viewed in that larger context. On the blood-drenched stage of world history Comanche violence was well within the normal range . We are more aware of the Comanche violence because the victims were people like us, and because the survivors were literate in English. From this same period we have much less testimony from the African victims of the slave trade (or as far as that goes, from 20th-century Congolese), and unsurprisingly the testimony we do have is not as widely circulated.”

Furthermore, I offered a factual account of the cultural significance of Indian “horse stealing”. If you want to squarely rely on great western Hollywood directors as your source of tribal information, then you are a fool.

“You are free to leave the U.S. for a third world nation or go live on an Indian reservation if you have an axe to grind with how the Europeans founded this country, but I doubt you have the courage to live up to your ideals.”

Europeans and non-Europeans helped to found and create our nation.

“White settlers did employ divide and conquer tactics against the Indians. This strategy was adopted after whites had suffered massacres at the hands of Indians such as at Jamestown in 1644 and a much bigger death toll in Connecticut in 1675. But Indians were killing each other long before Europeans arrived in N. America. The evidence isn’t hard to find but you obviously refuse to look since it will explode your fact averse worldview about European colonialism in N. America.”

Historical context once again escapes you. Clearly, you were asleep in American history class.

“Perhaps among the Lakotas, but if you think they were the only Indian tribe in the plains you need to educate yourself. Their customs didn’t extend to rival tribes such as the Pawnee, Crow, Omaha or Blackfeet and others who they sometimes waged merciless war against irrespective of what the wicked white man did.”

The tribes you listed also had forms of government similar to the Lakotas. You’re just not that bright.

You are hard up in your denials. In fact, the sources indicate from the very beginning of the (portuguese) slave trading, jews were prominent and dominant - although some "maranos" tried to hide behind christianity. Furthermore, we now know that slave trading was a major part of the Brit economy in the 1830s (when the Rothschilds already owned much of the Brit economy) and that there are vast records about Brit slave trading that remain to be studied.

In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland - to this day.

“You are hard up in your denials.”

That would you projecting again.

“In fact, the sources indicate from the very beginning of the (portuguese) slave trading, jews were prominent and dominant – although some “maranos” tried to hide behind christianity.”

That’s not the claim you made nor have supported–Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies.

The more that you avoid addressing your own claim with evidence, the more that you are engaging in deception.

“Furthermore, we now know that slave trading was a major part of the Brit economy in the 1830s
(when the Rothschilds already owned much of the Brit economy) and that there are vast records about Brit slave trading that remain to be studied.”

Which has nothing to do with your original claim. Why are you stalling here?

“In the US there are studies that claim that less than 4% of white southerners owned slaves, but over 40% of southern jews owned slaves. I always remember walking around the main southern slaving port (Charleston). The big stone mansions of the (jewish) slave traders are on the water front, the wooden mansions of the wealthy whites are a bit further inland and the shanty towns of the blacks are still further inland – to this day.”

Dr. Malcolm Stern investigated the 1790 manuscript census returns of South Carolina. He noted seventy-three heads of households were identified as Jewish. Out of this number, thirty-four owned one or more slaves, to a total of 151 slaves. The only large holdings of slaves were possessed by oe family from Charleston (11), and three families from Georgetown consisting of 21, 11, and 9 slaves.
Jews generally lived in urban areas, so it is other than surprising that they had one or two domestic slaves. 34/73 = 46.6%, which compares to an ownership rate of 34.2% in all South Carolina households in 1790. Note that those 34 Jewish slave-owning households were out of 8,859 total slave-owning households in South Carolina in 1790; that would mean Jews were 0.4% of slave owners here. Furthermore, one could argue that the reason why wealthy Jews owned slaves similar to wealthy non-Jews was due to their shared belief in desiring a lifestyle free from domestic work. In other words, both groups displayed their riches by having slaves take care of the household to enable these groups to enjoy a leisurely lifestyle.

I added the reference to the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and the Veracruz story as a kind of counterweight to your story about certain "Mexican" powers-that-be wanting to be "American". The historical relationships between Spain, Mexico and the US are very complex and should not be shoehorned into modern schemata. For example, look up how Galveston Texas got its name. Maybe Mexicans could see Americans as ungrateful hypocrites that don't even know the crucial role Spain played in our war for independence?

Spain helped us a lot in our revolution it’s true. That information is never taught even in university level American history courses.
It’s my impression that all those independence movements in Latin America began in the late 1780′s when Britian lost America as a trading partner and dumping ground for its criminal’s and the wretched refuse of the enclosure movement and industrial revolution.

Britian settled Australia for the criminals. All those Latin American revolutions were British instigated. The British needed the massive trade with Latin America to make up for the loss of American trade.

The operation was run from Tortuga. Suddenly the upper classes and striving middle class found Latin American Masonic Liberty equality rights of man clubs popping up in every city.
A major reason for revolting from Spain was removing Spanish laws protecting Indians.
The Monroe Doctrine was a response to the British Masons meddling in Latin America.

The revolutions happened and Spain left.

I always thought that America would never have attempted to seize Mexican territory if the Mexicans hadn’t naively followed the English Masons to independence from Spain. Would we have gone against Spain in 1848? It was no longer a great power but still had a powerful navy and a powerful diplomatic service in Europe.

Personally, I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about the history.

All I care about is affirmative action. As long as Whites are unemployable untouchables by order of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government all non Whites and even the real European Spanish are the enemy of White Americans.
But I can never resist pointing out that Mexico only ruled Texas for 14 years and California,New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado for 26 years.

Spain has much better revanchist claims to those territories than Mexico.

As long as White Americans are denied
jobs and government benefits because we are White and any black, Asian, Spanish or Latin American can get jobs, mortgages and government benefits because of their race or Spanish last name f them and our racist government.

"Oh, so as I write these words Europeans in Europe and America are stealing horses, raping women, killing babies, roasting people alive, scalping and killing each other? No wonder you aren’t taken seriously by most commenters on this site."

Your description of Native American tribal customs overall is woefully devoid of context.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/empire-of-the-comanche/

"There is no nonviolent theory of the international relations or of the state, but theorists of these topics do not go into detail about the cruelty and brutality of the necessary violence. Gwynn stresses the Comanches’ cruelty, but the Comanches did not do to Texans anything that Europeans did to each other during, e.g., the Thirty Years War or the Inquisition. The Comanche atrocities are not about “barbarism”. What they did in Texas, an area whose control was being contested, were within the normal range of violence for the various earlier empires, nations, and states and must be viewed in that larger context. On the blood-drenched stage of world history Comanche violence was well within the normal range . We are more aware of the Comanche violence because the victims were people like us, and because the survivors were literate in English. From this same period we have much less testimony from the African victims of the slave trade (or as far as that goes, from 20th-century Congolese), and unsurprisingly the testimony we do have is not as widely circulated."

Furthermore, I offered a factual account of the cultural significance of Indian "horse stealing". If you want to squarely rely on great western Hollywood directors as your source of tribal information, then you are a fool.

"You are free to leave the U.S. for a third world nation or go live on an Indian reservation if you have an axe to grind with how the Europeans founded this country, but I doubt you have the courage to live up to your ideals."

Europeans and non-Europeans helped to found and create our nation.

"White settlers did employ divide and conquer tactics against the Indians. This strategy was adopted after whites had suffered massacres at the hands of Indians such as at Jamestown in 1644 and a much bigger death toll in Connecticut in 1675. But Indians were killing each other long before Europeans arrived in N. America. The evidence isn’t hard to find but you obviously refuse to look since it will explode your fact averse worldview about European colonialism in N. America."

Historical context once again escapes you. Clearly, you were asleep in American history class.

https://mises.org/library/colonial-virginias-relations-indians

"Perhaps among the Lakotas, but if you think they were the only Indian tribe in the plains you need to educate yourself. Their customs didn’t extend to rival tribes such as the Pawnee, Crow, Omaha or Blackfeet and others who they sometimes waged merciless war against irrespective of what the wicked white man did."

The tribes you listed also had forms of government similar to the Lakotas. You're just not that bright.

At one point the Pawnee were almost exterminated by the Sioux. They took refugee in the French St Paul Minn trading post. Lots of their descendants are still there.

I loathe these pretentious a$$holes who think they are so so superior using the term Lakota instead of Sioux.

If you don’t like America go go back to your grandparents town in Russia or immigrate to Israel.

Mexico was compensated for the land it lost ($15 M in 1850, about $7 BN today after inflation), so "stolen" might not be quite the proper word. That was probably close to fair market value for unimproved, mostly uninhabited land. The fact that Mexico was compensated at all is remarkable, because for much of history, I think the idea of compensating the loser is comparatively rare. I don't think Stalin and Hitler paid the Poles when they divvied up Poland in 1939.

Anyway, the simple fact that the immigration issue is so emotional on both sides suggests that maybe there are too many immigrants? If the numbers were not so large, the stakes would not be as high and the issue could be rationally debated like any other. No one flips out when discussing the Energy Department's budget after all.

As if Poles have compensated anyone when they carved up Poland in 1920-1921. Bill always comes due.

First we had the claim there were fewer than 7000 in California at the time the US moved in. Now you expand this silliness to claim 7000 in the entire southwest.

Cambridge sophomore Richard Henry Dana (Two Years Before the Mast: see project Gutenberg) visited the California coast as a seaman aboard a Yankee trading vessel. He spent December of 1835 anchored in San Francisco Bay. In his classic book he wrote of a beautiful uninhabited bay, and he openly wishes that the United States would occupy it. He remarks that San Francisco is the busiest harbor in California, but he doesn't see the people who buy the goods traded from his ship. Dana never went ashore.

The El Camino Real (Royal Highway) that led from Santa Clara to what is now San Francisco was begun in 1776. It was visible from Dana's ship. But what he didn't see was the parallel path known as Alameda de Las Pulgas. This was the busy road that ordinary Californians used. It lay in the foothills out of sight, and people used it to avoid military, priests, and outsiders.

With typical Yankee egotism, Dana also ridicules the Russian sailors aboard a neighboring vessel for their heavy clothes compared the stylish garb of the Yankees. He does not seem to care that the Russians came from Alaska, while he has crossed the equator. A few pages later he complains about the cold San Francisco weather for which he is unprepared. Dana also boasts of selling inferior merchandise at inflated prices here. He notes that they traded with the Russians, but he doesn't say whether they sold the Russians any second-hand blankets from Yankee hospitals.

Dana's book became a best seller in New England, and it began the myth of the uninhabited California. This myth has been embellished over the years by New York publishers eager to please east coast readers, but there are glaring inconsistencies.

San Francisco Bay was first glimpsed by a hunting party sent out by Gaspar de Portola in 1769. They reportedly remarked: "that they had seen to the northward an enormous sea-arm or inlet shooting as far inland as eye could see toward the southeast; that they made out handsome plains thick with trees; and that the quantity of smokes they had made out rising from all over the flat did not allow them to doubt that the land must have been well peopled with heathen villages."

Seventy-five years later on December 7, 1834, the first elections were held in San Francisco. This was one year before Dana's visit, and a dozen years before the Yankee invasion. By that date the padres recorded over five thousand marriages at Mission Dolores alone; there were also four other missions around the bay. English language histories of San Francisco usually begin with the supposed Yankee trading colony at Yerba Buena, and they ignore the larger community at Mission Dolores just out of sight of their ships. Dana boasts of the superior business acumen of this Yankee enterprise (though he never saw it), but in fact it was the southernmost outpost of the Hudson Bay Company.

In 1849 Colonel James Collier, the first US customs inspector, wrote of his astonishment that the harbor at San Francisco was as busy as Philadelphia. According to the census of 1840, Philadelphia had a population of 93,665. It was a center of commerce for millions of people in surrounding areas.

The port at San Pedro, near Los Angeles. was the equal of San Francisco. Many smaller landings up and down the thousand miles of coastline were also booming.

The population of California in 1849 was closer to a million than the 15,000 claimed by the Yankees. I haven't studied other areas as thoroughly, but I suspect the same drastic under count occurred throughout the Southwest.

San Mateo county has at least a dozen monuments and preserved campsites to the the Crespi Portola Ortega expedition. Didn’t the largest landowner in N California, General Vallejo fight on the American side in 1848? At least what I was taught in school. Maybe the textbooks have changed the story since then.
I read Dana’s book. I think he spent some time ashore in Monterey.

But all he ever did was sneer at every one in California but himself and the Yankees back home. He compared everything to the better way things were done back home.

Didn’t the largest landowner in N California, General Vallejo fight on the American side in 1848? At least what I was taught in school. Maybe the textbooks have changed the story since then.

I don't know what they have in the textbooks, but my grandmother knew Don Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo's daughter. Carlo Sanchez also had some information about him. He even shows up in Dana's book.

The commandant of the Presidio, Don Gaudaloupe Villego, a young man, and the most popular, among the Americans and English, of any man in California, was on board when we got under weigh.

Vallejo was a buyer of banned books by protestant authors. He was noted for leaving gold coins in his guest rooms at Sonoma in case visitors wanted any. Carlo claimed he was minting his own.

Vallejo did indeed favor the Americans at first, but in the Bear Flag Rebellion he was arrested and held prisoner in Sutter's fort where he came down with malaria. He was eventually released and went on to become an elected member of the state legislature.
His health was ruined, and his land was taken over by squatters. Eventually he traveled to Washington DC to pursue his claim to a few hundred wild acres on which the city of San Francisco now lay. He was just in time to see the conclusion of the Uncivil War, and he was shocked and saddened by what he saw. He was ignored, and he returned to California. He lived the rest of his life in poverty with a few acres of oranges and a cow. Of the Americans he said "Never summon a bull unless you are prepared to be gored by the horns."

I read Dana’s book. I think he spent some time ashore in Monterey.

Not in San Francisco though. Dana tries to hide it, but if you read carefully you will find his information is second-hand from sailors who did go ashore. Dana went ashore at Monterrey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and his captain left him for a few months in San Diego after hiring extra crew. I had the impression the captain was nervous about Dana having a diary.

But all he ever did was sneer at every one in California but himself and the Yankees back home. He compared everything to the better way things were done back home.

Yup. And Yankees still do that. It doesn't matter whether they came in 1848 or 1958. There is always nothing in California until they came.

We could even include Cromwell, who let the jews back into Britain in an epoch where the native Brits were producing first-class results (Shakespeare, Newton). So Cromwell is the origin of the Brit slave financiers/traders.

Sir John Hawkins in the 1500s was the first British slave trader. He and his investors and the British crown made a fortune. He sold the slaves to Spanish colonies despite that slavery was illegal in Spanish territory.

Hawkins and Mary and Elizabeth Tudor had nothing to do with Jewish and Portuguese slave traders

Cromwell was more interested in imposing his jihadi religion on England and its colonies especially Ireland. Cromwell dealt in White Irish slaves. Why sail to hot humid disease ridden Africa when there were plenty of Irish a day’s sail away?

The tribal groups in the Midwest and West were other than lawless. And, yes, those areas were largely uninhabited…by Europeans, who proceeded to jackboot the natives into submission by invading several (Indian) nations with definable borders and who had established rules and customs.

By what twisted logic does the history between the Cheyenne and the U.S. gov't in the mid 180os
entitle half-Spanish half-Aztec or Mayans from Central America the right to waltz in here and demand rights?

If you gots such sympathy for the Sioux et al., then you'd have to agree that the mestizo hordes clambering over the southern border trying to take from Whitey what Whitey took from the Sioux, are receivers of stolen goods. And knowingly receiving stolen goods makes the mestizos as guilty -- or even more so -- than the original thiefs.

Corvinus, YOU trot on back to the continent yer ancestors hail from and give your house and all your money to some kid on the Crow Reservation. When you've done that, let us know.

Corvinius is more obviously a Jew than a Hasid family in full frumpy regalia walking to shul on Saturday morning.

This is his and official Jewish reasoning

All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao)

The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide.

All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions.
The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe.

"Corvinius is more obviously a Jew than a Hasid family in full frumpy regalia walking to shul on Saturday morning."

Thank you for achieving the trifecta of idiocy. You make a wild claim that you have read hundreds of thousands of history books in your life, and don't address the discrepancy; generally refuse to offer sources when requested to back up your claim, and then jump on board with this notion that I'm Jewish.

"Personally, I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about the history."

Really? After allegedly reading 200,000 history books, now you offer this sentiment?

"All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao). The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide. All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions. The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe."

The U.S. was not a David to Mexico's Goliath, though Scott's expedition considered by itself probably was. But Old Fuss and Feathers came through due to his own qualities and Santa Ana's glaring lack of them.

The Yellow Rose of Texas was a very light skinned lemon yellow brown hair bleached blonde almost White free black prostitute. She was considered beautiful by everyone.

She was Santa Anna’s live in girl friend and opium supplier and prepared the pipes for him. She was also a spy for the Texican rebels. Girl friend is one thing, but a competent Santa Ana would have had his spy service check her out.

Anyway, with only 14 years of occupation, Mexico has no revanchist claim to Texas. I hope Corvinius realizes that Spain and Mexico are 2 different countries.

What is your opinion of Cobbett's methods and statements regarding English population of the Middle Ages?

Also, surely by 1870, any reluctance to meet yanqui census takers had dissipated? Yet at that date the population was only 560,247, during a time when it was subject to rapid increase (over 50% by 1880 to 864,964). I'm sure the 7000 number for California is an underestimate, but was it to such an extent that the actual population was between 500K and 1M?

The missions still exist and probably have excellent pre 1850 records. If any one wants to do the work.

I remember from school that the 7,000 figure was from the 1830 census. Governor Pico wrote that there were so many wagon trains on the Santa Fe trail that the Americans could just walk from wagon to wagon through Arizona to Los Angeles He begged the Mexican government to send troops, settlers and bureaucrats. It didn’t.

The missions still exist and probably have excellent pre 1850 records. If any one wants to do the work.

Yes they do. Mission Dolores (now in downtown San Francisco) counted over 5000 marriages, and there were altogether 21 missions in California. The territory covered by those missions was less that one eighth of the the area of the state.

I remember from school that the 7,000 figure was from the 1830 census.

I wasn't there in school with you, but I have a very convincing copy of the census results in Spanish that show 23,476 "gente de razon". That means those who could speak Spanish and have some grasp of arithmetic. Women, children, and Indians who could not speak Spanish at that time were not counted.

Governor Pico wrote that there were so many wagon trains on the Santa Fe trail that the Americans could just walk from wagon to wagon through Arizona to Los Angeles He begged the Mexican government to send troops, settlers and bureaucrats. It didn’t.

He did write to get help, but this was obvious hyperbole. It was the introduction of steamship travel through Panama in 1848 that brought the great masses of immigrants. Yankees were noted for laziness. Legally they were the only ones allowed to file mining claims, but they generally tired of the hard work involved and sold their claims to Indians or Chinese. Then they went back home.

One thoroughly documented book which covers the Yankee takeover in the southern coastal areas is California Conquered by Neal Harlow (University of California Press, 1982). He was introduced over beer by descendant of the Sanchez family (from the Sanchez Adobe in San Mateo County). That would have been around 1975. Neal took a low pressure job as a librarian so he could spend his life writing that book.

"Question: suppose Canada had “stolen” Minnesota at the same time. Since there were no more than 6,000 “Americans” people living there at the time, do you really think Americans today would be indifferent to this?"

Thanks for the lesson in moral relativism.

Sooo Corvinius displays his ignorance. Minnesota was part of Canada until 1759 and still has plenty of descendants of those Canadiens still living there.

Well, Mario Vargas Llosa was indeed born in Peru, but he became "famous" and got his Nobel for selling out to the NeoCon (jewish) oligarchy in Europe and then the US. It is no accident that he was part of the corruption in Panama.

MARIO VARGAS LLOSA FINDS THE “RIGHTEOUS ISRAELIS”: RICH, WHITE, PRIVILEGED
https://sethfrantzman.com/2016/07/06/mario-vargas-llosa-finds-the-righteous-jews-rich-white-privileged/
..... Llosa tells us he found the “righteous”, but it seems he never looked beyond the tiny, privileged, bubble, he never met the workers, the people who clean toilets in Israel, the people who make no money as cashiers, the people who are single mothers, the people who work in concrete, the people who fix sinks, and change the oil of cars; but they are the righteous. A few privileged, rich, white people in the West Bank, who jet back and forth and drive in nice cars, and live in villas, and enjoy a good life do not deserve accolades for doing the bare minimum to do justice. They did the minimum. They have less justice than the poor and the victims, the marginalized, those without voices, those for whom daily life is a struggle, for which a bank account with a positive balance at the end of the month would be a major privilege.

If you stand with the victims and the marginalized, and you expect to get credit for doing so, you are not “righteous”, you are just seeking recognition on the backs of others. That’s not righteous. It’s probably immoral.

The Hypocrisies of Mario Vargas Llosa
https://www.counterpunch.org/2010/11/17/the-hypocrisies-of-mario-vargas-llosa/
.... Vargas Llosa has been remarkably silent, however, about the much worse violations of human rights in Colombia under the government of Alvaro Uribe. Uribe’s army has killed nearly a thousand people, identified inaccurately as “terrorists” (a well-known false positive), and Vargas Llosa has said nothing. Colombia is also the country where more trade unionists have been assassinated han anywhere else in the world and Vargas Llosa has said nothing. In Honduras, the current government – formed through a military coup – has been killing opponents, journalists, and trade unionists, and Vargas Llosa has said nothing. He actually justified the military coup. And regarding his supposed championship of freedom of the press, Venezuela and Bolivia have much more diversity of the press than Colombia and Honduras – and Vargas Llosa, again, has said nothing about this lack of press diversity in those countries. As a matter of fact, he has presented both countries’ governments as great defenders of freedom.

It’s obvious that Mario Vargas Llosa is using the human rights issue as part of his right-wing crusade against left-wing governments. Actually, in Spain (he has Spanish citizenship), he was until recently a member of the right-wing Popular Party (PP). This party was founded by members of the fascist state led by General Franco, and it recently applauded the trial of Judge Garzon by the Spanish Supreme Court for trying to bring to trial the crimes of the Franco dictatorship. The case against Garzon was started when he was denounced by the fascist party, la Falange. During the whole process, Vargas Llosa remained silent.....

Francisco Franco is the greatest hero of the 2oth century.

The Soviet “advisors” killed the socialists Republican government leaders and started to do what Lenin and Stalin did, genocide.

The Jewish media and Hemingway and all the empty brain liberals fell for the Jewish commie propaganda. But with the entire western world against him, general Franco drove the communists out of Spain and by the grace of God killed a lot of them.

The thing I like best about the Franco commie war is what happened to the Abraham Lincoln brigade. They were American communists and empty brain liberals who joined the communists to fight Franco’s army.

The communists quickly saw the brigade were useless city boys and idiot intellectuals. Also, the communist armies were mostly Russians who didn’t want to get killed.

So the communists put the Lincoln brigade cannon fodder in the front lines and they had a high death rate. Good Unfortunately some of the Lincoln brigade survived, came home and became liberals and civil rights activists.

A few years later the soviets invaded Finland and the Finns repelled the invasion. But Franco was a much, much better warrior leader of his people than the Finns because the Soviet communists had already conquered Spain when Franco began his counter revolution.

Any one who doesn’t admire Franco as the only 20th century leader who fought and won a war with the soviets doesn’t know the history and is just another empty brain liberal whose head is filled with liberal propaganda.

The liberals claim the Soviet communists were titled Republicans. They weren’t. The socialists were the Republicans. General Franco started his counter revolution after the Russian communists killed all the socialist Republicans.

Israeli intelligence agents guarding Martinelli
http://www.newsroompanama.com/news/panama/israeli-intelligence-agents-guarding-martinelli
Israel’ exports to Latin America now include intelligence operators and security guards and Panama has the biggest contingent according to Panama America..... President Ricardo Martinelli is now surrounded by members of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency, say police sources.

Panama and Israel: A special relationship
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/201212384442772843.html

Been going on for a long time. One should remember that the criminal vote for the partition of Palestine by the UN in 1947 (in contravention of its own charter) to create Israel obtained a majority because many Central American countries (at the time satrapies of US companies like United Fruit) voted in favor. Several of those countries then fired their UN representatives for selling their vote to the zionists.

Bit of trivia about that vote. It was the Latin American vote that made Israel possible. The New York zionists provided the bribes, fur coats. Only the wife of the Cuban ambassador refused.

Actually the Spanish monarchy banned slavery in the New World in 1508 (Batolomeo de las Casas) and reinforced that ban with laws about the rights of indigenous peoples in 1542. 90+% of the slave trading was financed/carried out by the jews of the British, Dutch and Portuguese homeland and colonies. More and more evidence of this emerges continuously.

When Mexico got its independence from Spain, the Mexicans kept the ban on slavery. There are those who say the invasion of Texas by Americans (remember the Alamo - 1836) was mostly about reversing the latino ban on slavery to set up slave cotton plantations for the textile factories of the "city of london" in Britain.

You are absolutely correct. Slavery was illegal in Mexico. In 1829 Mexico passed a stronger anti slavery law. The Mexicans, like the territories of Ohio, Indianna, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota knew that slave owners would move in with black “servants” and then go to court to make them slaves, just as happened in the early colonies. California kept a strict eye on black “servants” and their “employers”, making them sign strict employment contracts. The contracts specified total lack of obligation for the blacks when the contracts were up.

That’s why the slave states didn’t want to annex Mexico. It would bring in a huge non slave territory.

Throw in the drumbeat from racialist sites to the effect that Mexicans are stupid, filthy, criminal, and parasitic, and Trump’s asserting that they are rapists...Latin America has in fact produced a great many writers of the first rank, not to mention philosophy, architecture, and music.

Who could blame the “undocumenteds” for trying? I’m sure anyone in their position would do the same. But it is hardly fair to criticise the US for trying to send them back and for defending its land — which, like it or not, was won (or bought).

Even so, the Mexicans are quite right to say that the southwestern US was stolen. They should know: they “stole” it, and all of their land, from Spain in 1821, with not a single payment made. They did this as they slid from being the jewel of the Americas to being a dangerous failed state and an object of international ridicule. They were unable to manage their spoils, either in the north or the south (which they also lost), and it seems a bit rich of them to resent the US having finally taken what they were unable to develop or hold on their own, after they themselves had “stolen” it.

The ultimate goal of the United States in all this was California, and if the US hadn’t taken it, the Russians or the British would have. Mexico was never able to govern its northern territories, and many of the Californios were quite happy to live under American rule, as they still do today.

Corvinius is more obviously a Jew than a Hasid family in full frumpy regalia walking to shul on Saturday morning.

This is his and official Jewish reasoning

All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao)

The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide.

All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions.
The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe.

“Corvinius is more obviously a Jew than a Hasid family in full frumpy regalia walking to shul on Saturday morning.”

Thank you for achieving the trifecta of idiocy. You make a wild claim that you have read hundreds of thousands of history books in your life, and don’t address the discrepancy; generally refuse to offer sources when requested to back up your claim, and then jump on board with this notion that I’m Jewish.

“Personally, I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about the history.”

Really? After allegedly reading 200,000 history books, now you offer this sentiment?

“All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao). The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide. All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions. The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe.”

“All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao). The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide. All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions. The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe.”

The Soviet "advisors" killed the socialists Republican government leaders and started to do what Lenin and Stalin did, genocide.

The Jewish media and Hemingway and all the empty brain liberals fell for the Jewish commie propaganda. But with the entire western world against him, general Franco drove the communists out of Spain and by the grace of God killed a lot of them.

The thing I like best about the Franco commie war is what happened to the Abraham Lincoln brigade. They were American communists and empty brain liberals who joined the communists to fight Franco's army.

The communists quickly saw the brigade were useless city boys and idiot intellectuals. Also, the communist armies were mostly Russians who didn't want to get killed.

So the communists put the Lincoln brigade cannon fodder in the front lines and they had a high death rate. Good Unfortunately some of the Lincoln brigade survived, came home and became liberals and civil rights activists.

A few years later the soviets invaded Finland and the Finns repelled the invasion. But Franco was a much, much better warrior leader of his people than the Finns because the Soviet communists had already conquered Spain when Franco began his counter revolution.

Any one who doesn't admire Franco as the only 20th century leader who fought and won a war with the soviets doesn't know the history and is just another empty brain liberal whose head is filled with liberal propaganda.

The liberals claim the Soviet communists were titled Republicans. They weren't. The socialists were the Republicans. General Franco started his counter revolution after the Russian communists killed all the socialist Republicans.

Franco has long intrigued me. Can you recommend any books on him and/or the Spanish Civil War?

Its been a long time. The problem is that most of what is written about Franco is from the point of view of the communist government he over threw AFTER the Russian "advisors" overthrew the reasonable Socialist Republican government. The Russians didn't exactly overthrow the socialist Republicans. They just arrived in Spain and Killed them. The socialists won a 1933? election for a Republican, not monarchy government. The King quietly abdicated and left. Things were fine until the Russians arrived and killed the Republicans. In 1936??? Franco stepped in.

Here is something I found that is probably not steeped in 1930's naïve idiot intellectual Brave New World propaganda.Franco: Spanish Savior - The New American

Jul 19, 1999 - Whatever his faults, Francisco Franco stood bravely against ... Franco was not his authoritarianism, but rather the fact that he was an anti-Communist ruler. .... by Preston as “politically conservative and a deeply pious Catholic.

Try your nearest university although they probably only have anti Franco commie propaganda. There must be a Catholic university near you? They were very anti communist until recently.

You can order copies of library of congress books. Orwell wrote a book that is allegedly at least neutral on the Spanish civil war.

Franco, indeed a hero, correctly saw the commie threat but also the international network of "secret societies" that had helped overturn Europe's monarchical order since the French Revolution, (think Czar Alexander II or Elizabeth of Austria) including at least 2 attempts on the life of Alfonso XIII, who did not bow to their legislative agenda. One was made on the king's wedding day, and killed/wounded around 130 people. Anyway, Franco wrote a book, Masonry, under the alias Jakin Boor, this is it, in English:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-Masoneria-by-Jakim-Boor-/221938336408?
hash=item33ac8e4298

So he actually fought both the International Communist and the rather thick network of secret lodges in Spain. A nimble fellow.

You are desperate in your effort to intellectually box me in with a manufactured discrepancy. It's beyond absurd.

Chris Mallory said "So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn’t even bothered to invent the wheel. We won and they lost. That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man."

I replied "No, it points to the mercifulness of whites who realized the err of their ways. But some people, like yourself, never learn. It’s inborn."

It is clear whites had realized their treatment of tribal groups was unjust and immoral. They realized the err of their ways. Consider I was making a general statement in the context of Mallory's comment. Why don't you ask him to prove "Provide evidence that ALL of the founders of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the architects of the Indian Appropriations Act 1851 , were merciful to the savages, or else recant"? I did not assume that he meant EVERY white man, he was speaking in general terms. Are you purposely being obtuse?

In a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, James Imming, a federal agent, says "I came to this agency determined to steel my heart against all sympathy for my old enemies against whom I have skirmished on this border for twelve long years and swiftly attend to my duties. But when I heard tales of wrongs, and their earnest appeal for the government not to move them to the Missouri River where they would not live and as long as they were peaceable to let them stay where they are, I could not help feeling that justice should overreach itself in dealing with them. I have rode around to see them and the things they have planted look badly because they are parched up and they have not water enough to irrigate, and there is not farm land enough to amount to anything. By introducing proper discipline it would be much easier to keep whites and Mexicans away with their whiskey and other deteriorating habits and influence...The Indians roving disposition cannot be checked nor any progress made in civilizing them until they have an opportunity to become interested in farming and stock raising. [I’m afraid] that thieves, gamblers, and whiskey dealers will take all [the Indians] have
and cause bloodshed and riot [between them and the Indians]. The Indians have had an invitation that some of them could go to Washington and talk with the President. I would respectfully recommend they have a patient hearing on the matters now pending."

Francis Leupp, a former Indian commissioner, in 1910 said, "We hear a great deal about the way the 'educated' Indian degenerates after he returns to the reservation. There are, unhappily, too many illustrations of this to justify denial or permit evasion. But what can you expect? Take a boy away from the free open-air life of an Indian camp, house him for years in a steamheated boarding school
in a different climate, change all his habits as to food, clothing, occupation, and rest, and you risk--what? Either undermining his physique so that he sickens at the school, or softening it so that when he returns to the rougher life he cannot keep up the pace. Morally, too, he has a hard struggle to sustain himself, for he has no social background at home against which to project his new acquirements. The old people laugh at his unIndian ways; most of the young people, even those who have had some teaching near home, feel estranged to him; his diploma finds him nothing to do; and he despises the old life while in no condition to get away from it. Can a less happy fate be conceived than such suspension between heaven and earth? Is it wonderful if a lad not over-strong lets go his hold, and slips back to a last state which seems vastly worse than the first? With a girl, the chances of evil are yet greater, for reasons which must be obvious."

Apparently your intellectual box excludes the rules of grammar, or you'd know the difference between an imperative and a declarative.

Here is your idiotic statement:

"That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man.”

No, it points to the mercifulness of whites who realized the err of their ways. But some people, like yourself, never learn. It’s inborn.

Are you going to recant like an honest man, or wiggle like a disingenuous swine?

But we know the answer already:

Oink, oink.

You are desperate in your effort to intellectually box me in with a manufactured discrepancy. It’s beyond absurd.

Chris Mallory said “So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn’t even bothered to invent the wheel. We won and they lost. That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man.”

I replied “No, it points to the mercifulness of whites who realized the err of their ways. But some people, like yourself, never learn. It’s inborn.”

It is clear whites had realized their treatment of tribal groups was unjust and immoral. They realized the err of their ways. Consider I was making a general statement in the context of Mallory’s comment. Why don’t you ask him to prove “Provide evidence that ALL of the founders of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the architects of the Indian Appropriations Act 1851 , were merciful to the savages, or else recant”? I did not assume that he meant EVERY white man, he was speaking in general terms. Are you purposely being obtuse?

In a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, James Imming, a federal agent, says “I came to this agency determined to steel my heart against all sympathy for my old enemies against whom I have skirmished on this border for twelve long years and swiftly attend to my duties. But when I heard tales of wrongs, and their earnest appeal for the government not to move them to the Missouri River where they would not live and as long as they were peaceable to let them stay where they are, I could not help feeling that justice should overreach itself in dealing with them. I have rode around to see them and the things they have planted look badly because they are parched up and they have not water enough to irrigate, and there is not farm land enough to amount to anything. By introducing proper discipline it would be much easier to keep whites and Mexicans away with their whiskey and other deteriorating habits and influence…The Indians roving disposition cannot be checked nor any progress made in civilizing them until they have an opportunity to become interested in farming and stock raising. [I’m afraid] that thieves, gamblers, and whiskey dealers will take all [the Indians] have
and cause bloodshed and riot [between them and the Indians]. The Indians have had an invitation that some of them could go to Washington and talk with the President. I would respectfully recommend they have a patient hearing on the matters now pending.”

Francis Leupp, a former Indian commissioner, in 1910 said, “We hear a great deal about the way the ‘educated’ Indian degenerates after he returns to the reservation. There are, unhappily, too many illustrations of this to justify denial or permit evasion. But what can you expect? Take a boy away from the free open-air life of an Indian camp, house him for years in a steamheated boarding school
in a different climate, change all his habits as to food, clothing, occupation, and rest, and you risk–what? Either undermining his physique so that he sickens at the school, or softening it so that when he returns to the rougher life he cannot keep up the pace. Morally, too, he has a hard struggle to sustain himself, for he has no social background at home against which to project his new acquirements. The old people laugh at his unIndian ways; most of the young people, even those who have had some teaching near home, feel estranged to him; his diploma finds him nothing to do; and he despises the old life while in no condition to get away from it. Can a less happy fate be conceived than such suspension between heaven and earth? Is it wonderful if a lad not over-strong lets go his hold, and slips back to a last state which seems vastly worse than the first? With a girl, the chances of evil are yet greater, for reasons which must be obvious.”

What is your opinion of Cobbett’s methods and statements regarding English population of the Middle Ages?

I never heard of Cobbett’s method, but I know there was considerable dispute about the numbers. I think it would be a distraction for me to research it, but feel free to enlighten us.

Also, surely by 1870, any reluctance to meet yanqui census takers had dissipated? Yet at that date the population was only 560,247, during a time when it was subject to rapid increase (over 50% by 1880 to 864,964).

Actually no. Reluctance to meet census takers has continued into my lifetime. Only an hours drive from Palo Alto you may be startled to find local Indians who speak neither English nor Spanish still today. What they call old Sacramento was actually built for the occasion of the 1880 visit of President Rutherford B. Hayes. The area was not particularly safe. Most state officers lived in Oakland and commuted via railroad. The first governor to actually live in Sacramento was Earl Warren toward the end of WWII.

The rule of thumb is that there are no accurate censuses in California before 1900.

I’m sure the 7000 number for California is an underestimate, but was it to such an extent that the actual population was between 500K and 1M?

That is exactly what I think it was. I have combed old books and tried to merge them with information passed down in my family. We were founded by a Canadian woman who had an affair with a runaway slave in 1853. My great great grandfather was hauled away in chains under the terms of the fugitive slave act that was added to the California admission bill as a rider. This is the key to understanding how California was admitted as a free state. The rider turned darker California citizens into unclaimed property.

The rest of my family was run out of town and took refuge on an Indian reservation. I am an adopted German baby, but still this is fascinating history they don’t teach in schools.

Sorry about the spelling of yanqui. It was cut from my unpublished blog where I used to give a hispanic flavor to the piece. I didn’t mean to use it here.

I didn't know about the fugitive slave act in negotiations for Califotnia statehood.

But how in the world would a runaway slave get the money to get passage on a ship around S America or pay for passage on a wagon train from back east? Texas to Los Angeles on the Santa Fe trial would be the shortest distance, but it would cost a lot of money to join the wagon train and no one came alone.

The missions still exist and probably have excellent pre 1850 records. If any one wants to do the work.

I remember from school that the 7,000 figure was from the 1830 census. Governor Pico wrote that there were so many wagon trains on the Santa Fe trail that the Americans could just walk from wagon to wagon through Arizona to Los Angeles He begged the Mexican government to send troops, settlers and bureaucrats. It didn't.

The missions still exist and probably have excellent pre 1850 records. If any one wants to do the work.

Yes they do. Mission Dolores (now in downtown San Francisco) counted over 5000 marriages, and there were altogether 21 missions in California. The territory covered by those missions was less that one eighth of the the area of the state.

I remember from school that the 7,000 figure was from the 1830 census.

I wasn’t there in school with you, but I have a very convincing copy of the census results in Spanish that show 23,476 “gente de razon”. That means those who could speak Spanish and have some grasp of arithmetic. Women, children, and Indians who could not speak Spanish at that time were not counted.

Governor Pico wrote that there were so many wagon trains on the Santa Fe trail that the Americans could just walk from wagon to wagon through Arizona to Los Angeles He begged the Mexican government to send troops, settlers and bureaucrats. It didn’t.

He did write to get help, but this was obvious hyperbole. It was the introduction of steamship travel through Panama in 1848 that brought the great masses of immigrants. Yankees were noted for laziness. Legally they were the only ones allowed to file mining claims, but they generally tired of the hard work involved and sold their claims to Indians or Chinese. Then they went back home.

One thoroughly documented book which covers the Yankee takeover in the southern coastal areas is California Conquered by Neal Harlow (University of California Press, 1982). He was introduced over beer by descendant of the Sanchez family (from the Sanchez Adobe in San Mateo County). That would have been around 1975. Neal took a low pressure job as a librarian so he could spend his life writing that book.

A tacit admittance your claim to have read 200,000 history books over the course of your lifetime is bogus. Furthermore, the sources I use for the most part come from other than Wikipedia. For example, the Leupp quotation comes directly from his book "The Indian And His Problem" (1910).

What is your opinion of Cobbett’s methods and statements regarding English population of the Middle Ages?

I never heard of Cobbett's method, but I know there was considerable dispute about the numbers. I think it would be a distraction for me to research it, but feel free to enlighten us.

Also, surely by 1870, any reluctance to meet yanqui census takers had dissipated? Yet at that date the population was only 560,247, during a time when it was subject to rapid increase (over 50% by 1880 to 864,964).

Actually no. Reluctance to meet census takers has continued into my lifetime. Only an hours drive from Palo Alto you may be startled to find local Indians who speak neither English nor Spanish still today. What they call old Sacramento was actually built for the occasion of the 1880 visit of President Rutherford B. Hayes. The area was not particularly safe. Most state officers lived in Oakland and commuted via railroad. The first governor to actually live in Sacramento was Earl Warren toward the end of WWII.

The rule of thumb is that there are no accurate censuses in California before 1900.

I’m sure the 7000 number for California is an underestimate, but was it to such an extent that the actual population was between 500K and 1M?

That is exactly what I think it was. I have combed old books and tried to merge them with information passed down in my family. We were founded by a Canadian woman who had an affair with a runaway slave in 1853. My great great grandfather was hauled away in chains under the terms of the fugitive slave act that was added to the California admission bill as a rider. This is the key to understanding how California was admitted as a free state. The rider turned darker California citizens into unclaimed property.

The rest of my family was run out of town and took refuge on an Indian reservation. I am an adopted German baby, but still this is fascinating history they don't teach in schools.

Sorry about the spelling of yanqui. It was cut from my unpublished blog where I used to give a hispanic flavor to the piece. I didn't mean to use it here.

Where are the Indians near Palo Alto?

I didn’t know about the fugitive slave act in negotiations for Califotnia statehood.

But how in the world would a runaway slave get the money to get passage on a ship around S America or pay for passage on a wagon train from back east? Texas to Los Angeles on the Santa Fe trial would be the shortest distance, but it would cost a lot of money to join the wagon train and no one came alone.

The missions still exist and probably have excellent pre 1850 records. If any one wants to do the work.

Yes they do. Mission Dolores (now in downtown San Francisco) counted over 5000 marriages, and there were altogether 21 missions in California. The territory covered by those missions was less that one eighth of the the area of the state.

I remember from school that the 7,000 figure was from the 1830 census.

I wasn't there in school with you, but I have a very convincing copy of the census results in Spanish that show 23,476 "gente de razon". That means those who could speak Spanish and have some grasp of arithmetic. Women, children, and Indians who could not speak Spanish at that time were not counted.

Governor Pico wrote that there were so many wagon trains on the Santa Fe trail that the Americans could just walk from wagon to wagon through Arizona to Los Angeles He begged the Mexican government to send troops, settlers and bureaucrats. It didn’t.

He did write to get help, but this was obvious hyperbole. It was the introduction of steamship travel through Panama in 1848 that brought the great masses of immigrants. Yankees were noted for laziness. Legally they were the only ones allowed to file mining claims, but they generally tired of the hard work involved and sold their claims to Indians or Chinese. Then they went back home.

One thoroughly documented book which covers the Yankee takeover in the southern coastal areas is California Conquered by Neal Harlow (University of California Press, 1982). He was introduced over beer by descendant of the Sanchez family (from the Sanchez Adobe in San Mateo County). That would have been around 1975. Neal took a low pressure job as a librarian so he could spend his life writing that book.

What is your opinion of Cobbett’s methods and statements regarding English population of the Middle Ages?

I never heard of Cobbett's method, but I know there was considerable dispute about the numbers. I think it would be a distraction for me to research it, but feel free to enlighten us.

Also, surely by 1870, any reluctance to meet yanqui census takers had dissipated? Yet at that date the population was only 560,247, during a time when it was subject to rapid increase (over 50% by 1880 to 864,964).

Actually no. Reluctance to meet census takers has continued into my lifetime. Only an hours drive from Palo Alto you may be startled to find local Indians who speak neither English nor Spanish still today. What they call old Sacramento was actually built for the occasion of the 1880 visit of President Rutherford B. Hayes. The area was not particularly safe. Most state officers lived in Oakland and commuted via railroad. The first governor to actually live in Sacramento was Earl Warren toward the end of WWII.

The rule of thumb is that there are no accurate censuses in California before 1900.

I’m sure the 7000 number for California is an underestimate, but was it to such an extent that the actual population was between 500K and 1M?

That is exactly what I think it was. I have combed old books and tried to merge them with information passed down in my family. We were founded by a Canadian woman who had an affair with a runaway slave in 1853. My great great grandfather was hauled away in chains under the terms of the fugitive slave act that was added to the California admission bill as a rider. This is the key to understanding how California was admitted as a free state. The rider turned darker California citizens into unclaimed property.

The rest of my family was run out of town and took refuge on an Indian reservation. I am an adopted German baby, but still this is fascinating history they don't teach in schools.

Sorry about the spelling of yanqui. It was cut from my unpublished blog where I used to give a hispanic flavor to the piece. I didn't mean to use it here.

So, he was a runaway slave that made it to California? What a story!! Do you have any idea how he got to California?
Where was he from? Texas and the Santa Fe trail?

You are desperate in your effort to intellectually box me in with a manufactured discrepancy. It's beyond absurd.

Chris Mallory said "So what? We were superior and we took the land from stone age savages who hadn’t even bothered to invent the wheel. We won and they lost. That there are any of the savages still alive on reservations just points to the mercy of the White Man."

I replied "No, it points to the mercifulness of whites who realized the err of their ways. But some people, like yourself, never learn. It’s inborn."

It is clear whites had realized their treatment of tribal groups was unjust and immoral. They realized the err of their ways. Consider I was making a general statement in the context of Mallory's comment. Why don't you ask him to prove "Provide evidence that ALL of the founders of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the architects of the Indian Appropriations Act 1851 , were merciful to the savages, or else recant"? I did not assume that he meant EVERY white man, he was speaking in general terms. Are you purposely being obtuse?

In a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, James Imming, a federal agent, says "I came to this agency determined to steel my heart against all sympathy for my old enemies against whom I have skirmished on this border for twelve long years and swiftly attend to my duties. But when I heard tales of wrongs, and their earnest appeal for the government not to move them to the Missouri River where they would not live and as long as they were peaceable to let them stay where they are, I could not help feeling that justice should overreach itself in dealing with them. I have rode around to see them and the things they have planted look badly because they are parched up and they have not water enough to irrigate, and there is not farm land enough to amount to anything. By introducing proper discipline it would be much easier to keep whites and Mexicans away with their whiskey and other deteriorating habits and influence...The Indians roving disposition cannot be checked nor any progress made in civilizing them until they have an opportunity to become interested in farming and stock raising. [I’m afraid] that thieves, gamblers, and whiskey dealers will take all [the Indians] have
and cause bloodshed and riot [between them and the Indians]. The Indians have had an invitation that some of them could go to Washington and talk with the President. I would respectfully recommend they have a patient hearing on the matters now pending."

Francis Leupp, a former Indian commissioner, in 1910 said, "We hear a great deal about the way the 'educated' Indian degenerates after he returns to the reservation. There are, unhappily, too many illustrations of this to justify denial or permit evasion. But what can you expect? Take a boy away from the free open-air life of an Indian camp, house him for years in a steamheated boarding school
in a different climate, change all his habits as to food, clothing, occupation, and rest, and you risk--what? Either undermining his physique so that he sickens at the school, or softening it so that when he returns to the rougher life he cannot keep up the pace. Morally, too, he has a hard struggle to sustain himself, for he has no social background at home against which to project his new acquirements. The old people laugh at his unIndian ways; most of the young people, even those who have had some teaching near home, feel estranged to him; his diploma finds him nothing to do; and he despises the old life while in no condition to get away from it. Can a less happy fate be conceived than such suspension between heaven and earth? Is it wonderful if a lad not over-strong lets go his hold, and slips back to a last state which seems vastly worse than the first? With a girl, the chances of evil are yet greater, for reasons which must be obvious."

Instead of writing about how us evil White goyim treated the Indians, why don’t you read up on how you Jews are treating Palestinians in the land you stole from them?

Or how they ran the African slave ships. Speilberg's movie Amistad would have shown all the ship's captains wearing prominent crucifixes of course, the same way all the Russian Jewish gangsters wear them in movies so we know they are really not Jews. All lies.

"Instead of writing about how us evil White goyim treated the Indians, why don’t you read up on how you Jews are treating Palestinians in the land you stole from them?"

Again, if it makes you feel better about yourself to claim that I'm Jewish on a blog with no evidence, then go right ahead. Here is a virtual box of Kleenex to wipe your tears away.

Regarding Jewish treatment of Palestinians, they should have their own homeland as well. But remember, the Arabs rejected the United Nations proposal to partition Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. Of course, the Arabs had their reasons.

Franco has long intrigued me. Can you recommend any books on him and/or the Spanish Civil War?

Its been a long time. The problem is that most of what is written about Franco is from the point of view of the communist government he over threw AFTER the Russian “advisors” overthrew the reasonable Socialist Republican government. The Russians didn’t exactly overthrow the socialist Republicans. They just arrived in Spain and Killed them. The socialists won a 1933? election for a Republican, not monarchy government. The King quietly abdicated and left. Things were fine until the Russians arrived and killed the Republicans. In 1936??? Franco stepped in.

Here is something I found that is probably not steeped in 1930′s naïve idiot intellectual Brave New World propaganda.
Franco: Spanish Savior – The New American

Jul 19, 1999 – Whatever his faults, Francisco Franco stood bravely against … Franco was not his authoritarianism, but rather the fact that he was an anti-Communist ruler. …. by Preston as “politically conservative and a deeply pious Catholic.

Try your nearest university although they probably only have anti Franco commie propaganda. There must be a Catholic university near you? They were very anti communist until recently.

You can order copies of library of congress books. Orwell wrote a book that is allegedly at least neutral on the Spanish civil war.

George Hill is very good on that era. Hugh Thomas is a pretty reliable source. Preston and Jackson are Republican propagandists.

Homage to Catalonia is not neutral but more or less impartial since Orwell doesn't actually talk about the other side all that much. Arnold Lunn gave a good first-hand account of his travels in Nationalist Spain (as a reporter for the Tablet, I think). Gil-Robles wrote a brief contemporary account in the Tablet of the sources of the war.

Monarchy referendum (sort of) was '31. The Right (CEDA) actually won in '33 but the President (Alcala-Zamora?) wouldn't let them form a government, probably because the Left would have risen, as they in fact briefly did.

Its been a long time. The problem is that most of what is written about Franco is from the point of view of the communist government he over threw AFTER the Russian "advisors" overthrew the reasonable Socialist Republican government. The Russians didn't exactly overthrow the socialist Republicans. They just arrived in Spain and Killed them. The socialists won a 1933? election for a Republican, not monarchy government. The King quietly abdicated and left. Things were fine until the Russians arrived and killed the Republicans. In 1936??? Franco stepped in.

Here is something I found that is probably not steeped in 1930's naïve idiot intellectual Brave New World propaganda.Franco: Spanish Savior - The New American

Jul 19, 1999 - Whatever his faults, Francisco Franco stood bravely against ... Franco was not his authoritarianism, but rather the fact that he was an anti-Communist ruler. .... by Preston as “politically conservative and a deeply pious Catholic.

Try your nearest university although they probably only have anti Franco commie propaganda. There must be a Catholic university near you? They were very anti communist until recently.

You can order copies of library of congress books. Orwell wrote a book that is allegedly at least neutral on the Spanish civil war.

George Hill is very good on that era. Hugh Thomas is a pretty reliable source. Preston and Jackson are Republican propagandists.

Homage to Catalonia is not neutral but more or less impartial since Orwell doesn’t actually talk about the other side all that much. Arnold Lunn gave a good first-hand account of his travels in Nationalist Spain (as a reporter for the Tablet, I think). Gil-Robles wrote a brief contemporary account in the Tablet of the sources of the war.

Monarchy referendum (sort of) was ’31. The Right (CEDA) actually won in ’33 but the President (Alcala-Zamora?) wouldn’t let them form a government, probably because the Left would have risen, as they in fact briefly did.

I like Mexicans a great deal and live in a border town where the majority are Mexican.

I agree with a lot of what Fred says here, but one thing to keep in mind is the hypocrisy I see a lot from Mexicans.

Mexicans don't like being called dirty, rapists, low iq, etc. But they do the exact same thing to the Haitians that immigrated to Mexico. Keep in mind that some 80% of women from central America that cross into Mexico end up getting raped my Mexicans. So Americans absolutely treat immigrants better than Mexicans do.

Also, when it comes to racism, who are Mexicans to talk? Mexicans are absolutely as racist if not more racist than any other country. Stereotypes are a huge part of their society.

So yeah, Americans should ease up a little bit on the Mexicans. But let's not let Mexicans off the hook either.

100% agreed. My wife was brought here illegally as a 2 year old from Mexico. Her mother hates Regan & all of us conservatives, but then states the truth ” she would rather deal with American immigration than Mexican”.

George Hill is very good on that era. Hugh Thomas is a pretty reliable source. Preston and Jackson are Republican propagandists.

Homage to Catalonia is not neutral but more or less impartial since Orwell doesn't actually talk about the other side all that much. Arnold Lunn gave a good first-hand account of his travels in Nationalist Spain (as a reporter for the Tablet, I think). Gil-Robles wrote a brief contemporary account in the Tablet of the sources of the war.

Monarchy referendum (sort of) was '31. The Right (CEDA) actually won in '33 but the President (Alcala-Zamora?) wouldn't let them form a government, probably because the Left would have risen, as they in fact briefly did.

Typo alert: Hill –> Hills

Also: Gironella’s Los Cipreses creen en Dios is very good and surprisingly neutral.

San Mateo county has at least a dozen monuments and preserved campsites to the the Crespi Portola Ortega expedition. Didn't the largest landowner in N California, General Vallejo fight on the American side in 1848? At least what I was taught in school. Maybe the textbooks have changed the story since then.
I read Dana's book. I think he spent some time ashore in Monterey.

But all he ever did was sneer at every one in California but himself and the Yankees back home. He compared everything to the better way things were done back home.

Didn’t the largest landowner in N California, General Vallejo fight on the American side in 1848? At least what I was taught in school. Maybe the textbooks have changed the story since then.

I don’t know what they have in the textbooks, but my grandmother knew Don Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo’s daughter. Carlo Sanchez also had some information about him. He even shows up in Dana’s book.

The commandant of the Presidio, Don Gaudaloupe Villego, a young man, and the most popular, among the Americans and English, of any man in California, was on board when we got under weigh.

Vallejo was a buyer of banned books by protestant authors. He was noted for leaving gold coins in his guest rooms at Sonoma in case visitors wanted any. Carlo claimed he was minting his own.

Vallejo did indeed favor the Americans at first, but in the Bear Flag Rebellion he was arrested and held prisoner in Sutter’s fort where he came down with malaria. He was eventually released and went on to become an elected member of the state legislature.
His health was ruined, and his land was taken over by squatters. Eventually he traveled to Washington DC to pursue his claim to a few hundred wild acres on which the city of San Francisco now lay. He was just in time to see the conclusion of the Uncivil War, and he was shocked and saddened by what he saw. He was ignored, and he returned to California. He lived the rest of his life in poverty with a few acres of oranges and a cow. Of the Americans he said “Never summon a bull unless you are prepared to be gored by the horns.”

I read Dana’s book. I think he spent some time ashore in Monterey.

Not in San Francisco though. Dana tries to hide it, but if you read carefully you will find his information is second-hand from sailors who did go ashore. Dana went ashore at Monterrey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and his captain left him for a few months in San Diego after hiring extra crew. I had the impression the captain was nervous about Dana having a diary.

But all he ever did was sneer at every one in California but himself and the Yankees back home. He compared everything to the better way things were done back home.

Yup. And Yankees still do that. It doesn’t matter whether they came in 1848 or 1958. There is always nothing in California until they came.

The priest was from Africa, and I hope immigrants like him will help preserve our Christian civilization.

I think it's almost a stretch to use "Priest" and "Christian civilization" in the same sentence. Catholocism is that divergent from the bible.

Where does the bible say blacks should not be Catholic priests? Catholic means universal in Greek. Brown Ethiopia became Christian by 300.

Every time I channel surf on Sundays a black Protestant clergyman is preaching. In the United States there are vastly more black Protestant clergy than black Catholic clergy.

Southern Baptist is one of the largest Protestant denominations. It was originally all White. Now it’s open to all races and many of their clergy and high level leadership are blacks who work for White parishes for White congregations.

The Catholic Church always intended to be a universal global church. Syrian Catholic monks went to China as early as 300AD. There were Catholic bishops in China all through what were known in Europe as the dark ages and medieval period. Their monthly reports spent 2 years on the Silk Road before they arrived at the Vatican. Those reports are still there in the Vatican.

There is an ancient Roman Catholic community in India that claims their ancestors were converted by St Thomas the apostle. Perhaps, but their records go back 2,000 years.

Given the thousands and thousands of black Protestant clergy in this country I think it’s strange that a Protestant doesn’t approve of the occasional black Catholic priest.

Again, where does the Christian bible say a black can’t be a priest? Or does your denomination only read the Hebrew bible Calvin, Knox and the rest of the Puritans. Does it have something to do with the fact that one of the sons of Noah and his wife suddenly turned from a White man into a black African after the flood ended? Yeah right. And the world was created by an old man up in the sky in 6 days. And God tells you to kick your first born child with a slave girl out to die in the desert when your 100 year old self manages to get your 100 year old wife pregnant.

Cipreses has little in-depth discussion of Madrid politics because it's primarily about their effect on the people of a smallish city in Catalonia. Un Millon de Muertos has a lot of detail about the war itself, but it's a worse novel because the focus is distributed too widely.

There are a few Soviet characters but I can't remember which book they're in.

If you want a biography of Franco, Hills is probably the best. Prieto wrote a book called Palabras al Viento, but I haven't read it and doubt there's an English version. Gil-Robles also wrote a book, No fue posible la paz, but unlike his Tablet articles I don't think it's available in English. Also in Spanish are the Red General Vicente Rojo's memoirs of the war, which I would like to read at some point.

Mexico invaded the US with a huge battle-hardened army (having been engaged in multiple wars in Central America), modern weapons, and were boasting about how they would win “in no time”. They picked the battle, got cocky, and lost. The Americans could have kicked their butts harder, but refrained from doing so. When they marched on Mexico City some of the Americans wanted to invade and conquer the place, but they didn’t. Fred forgets that many in Texas wanted to remain in the USA and did not want to be part of Mexico at all. Mexico used to have an Empire over 150 years ago, with support from France, Spain, Austria/Hungary. They owned all of Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, etc. Why is there no “Reconquista” in Honduras? Why has Mexico built a Trumpian wall there? Why don’t they bitch about Honduras winning independence from the Mexican Empire like Texas did?

When the Anglos handed their butts to them, they got real sore. They are still sore, but it’s not Hispanic vs English sore, it’s Mestizo low IQ bums vs Intelligent Rich Whites sore. In other words, anti-white hate, nothing more.

Now the Mestizos are sour about it, total anti-whites, and are just a fungus attacking a weakened America.

Fred should know better. This article of his is bullshit. He’s been listening to his wife too much maybe.

Instead of writing about how us evil White goyim treated the Indians, why don't you read up on how you Jews are treating Palestinians in the land you stole from them?

Or how they ran the African slave ships. Speilberg’s movie Amistad would have shown all the ship’s captains wearing prominent crucifixes of course, the same way all the Russian Jewish gangsters wear them in movies so we know they are really not Jews. All lies.

"Corvinius is more obviously a Jew than a Hasid family in full frumpy regalia walking to shul on Saturday morning."

Thank you for achieving the trifecta of idiocy. You make a wild claim that you have read hundreds of thousands of history books in your life, and don't address the discrepancy; generally refuse to offer sources when requested to back up your claim, and then jump on board with this notion that I'm Jewish.

"Personally, I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about the history."

Really? After allegedly reading 200,000 history books, now you offer this sentiment?

"All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao). The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide. All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions. The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe."

A lot of straw, man. But, hey, the train is fine.

“All Europeans who have arrived in America since the medieval Norwegians are genocidal monsters ala Hitler( but not his heroes Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot and Mao). The only Europeans who have any right whatsoever to be in America are the Jews who had to flee centuries of persecution and genocide. All Asians, Africans, Indians, Arabs and Hispanics have the absolute right to swarm into America in their billions. The Arabs Asians Africans Indians and Hispanics have the right to immediate affirmative action jobs and government benefits because they are not White, even Spanish immigrants straight from Europe.”

Your article is pure BS. America did not ILLEGALLY annex Texas. Your article provides nothing of proof about the start of the Mexican-American war. Texas was an independent country that asked to be annexed by the US. Mexico threatened the US that there would be war if the US annexed Texas because Mexico was trying to raise an army to take it back.

The Mexican elite welcomed the war with the US because they thought they would win. If they didn't want a war they should have taken the US soldiers in the disputed Nueces strip into custody and marched them to what Mexico claimed was the border. Mexico screwed itself.

Either Mexico thought it would win a war with the US or Mexican leadership was too stupid to understand that you don't intentionally start wars with countries that might beat you who also want part of your territory. Which is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueces_Strip

Texas was part of Mexico for a little over a decade.
Big deal. They never really had it.
They had Honduras for longer than that. Why is there no “reconquista” of Honduras?

Instead of writing about how us evil White goyim treated the Indians, why don't you read up on how you Jews are treating Palestinians in the land you stole from them?

“Instead of writing about how us evil White goyim treated the Indians, why don’t you read up on how you Jews are treating Palestinians in the land you stole from them?”

Again, if it makes you feel better about yourself to claim that I’m Jewish on a blog with no evidence, then go right ahead. Here is a virtual box of Kleenex to wipe your tears away.

Regarding Jewish treatment of Palestinians, they should have their own homeland as well. But remember, the Arabs rejected the United Nations proposal to partition Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. Of course, the Arabs had their reasons.

Cipreses has little in-depth discussion of Madrid politics because it’s primarily about their effect on the people of a smallish city in Catalonia. Un Millon de Muertos has a lot of detail about the war itself, but it’s a worse novel because the focus is distributed too widely.

There are a few Soviet characters but I can’t remember which book they’re in.

If you want a biography of Franco, Hills is probably the best. Prieto wrote a book called Palabras al Viento, but I haven’t read it and doubt there’s an English version. Gil-Robles also wrote a book, No fue posible la paz, but unlike his Tablet articles I don’t think it’s available in English. Also in Spanish are the Red General Vicente Rojo’s memoirs of the war, which I would like to read at some point.

A tacit admittance your claim to have read 200,000 history books over the course of your lifetime is bogus. Furthermore, the sources I use for the most part come from other than Wikipedia. For example, the Leupp quotation comes directly from his book “The Indian And His Problem” (1910).

Where does the bible say blacks should not be Catholic priests? Catholic means universal in Greek. Brown Ethiopia became Christian by 300.

Every time I channel surf on Sundays a black Protestant clergyman is preaching. In the United States there are vastly more black Protestant clergy than black Catholic clergy.

Southern Baptist is one of the largest Protestant denominations. It was originally all White. Now it's open to all races and many of their clergy and high level leadership are blacks who work for White parishes for White congregations.

The Catholic Church always intended to be a universal global church. Syrian Catholic monks went to China as early as 300AD. There were Catholic bishops in China all through what were known in Europe as the dark ages and medieval period. Their monthly reports spent 2 years on the Silk Road before they arrived at the Vatican. Those reports are still there in the Vatican.

There is an ancient Roman Catholic community in India that claims their ancestors were converted by St Thomas the apostle. Perhaps, but their records go back 2,000 years.

Given the thousands and thousands of black Protestant clergy in this country I think it's strange that a Protestant doesn't approve of the occasional black Catholic priest.

Again, where does the Christian bible say a black can't be a priest? Or does your denomination only read the Hebrew bible Calvin, Knox and the rest of the Puritans. Does it have something to do with the fact that one of the sons of Noah and his wife suddenly turned from a White man into a black African after the flood ended? Yeah right. And the world was created by an old man up in the sky in 6 days. And God tells you to kick your first born child with a slave girl out to die in the desert when your 100 year old self manages to get your 100 year old wife pregnant.

Whhooooaaa!

I am black, Aldey, and I think everyone should be able to do any job that they are qualified for. My problem is with Catholicism itself.

The question you should be asking is, “where does the bible say anything about Priests, Popes, saints or any of that stuff.

The true story about Catholicism is quite strange (and Jesuits stranger), and the “protestant” story? In truth it ain’t much better…

Once I asked a younger colleague, he is of Mexican background, to recommend to me some Mexican fiction writer: his advice was to read Juan Rulfo, after that advice I read, in translation to English, "the 1955 novel Pedro Páramo", absolute delirium.
I was mostly upset that quite qualified colleague did not point to anything better !
WHAT A PITY !

Cipreses has little in-depth discussion of Madrid politics because it's primarily about their effect on the people of a smallish city in Catalonia. Un Millon de Muertos has a lot of detail about the war itself, but it's a worse novel because the focus is distributed too widely.

There are a few Soviet characters but I can't remember which book they're in.

If you want a biography of Franco, Hills is probably the best. Prieto wrote a book called Palabras al Viento, but I haven't read it and doubt there's an English version. Gil-Robles also wrote a book, No fue posible la paz, but unlike his Tablet articles I don't think it's available in English. Also in Spanish are the Red General Vicente Rojo's memoirs of the war, which I would like to read at some point.

…the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, of which most Americans have never heard. The United States attacked Mexico in a war of territorial acquisition, occupied Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona, and drove south to conquer Mexico City. It did it because it could. – Fred Reed

Yes, and everyone currently living in those areas is far better off today than they would have been if those parts of the USA were still under Mexican control. Try and deny it Reed. You can’t.

Franco has long intrigued me. Can you recommend any books on him and/or the Spanish Civil War?

Franco, indeed a hero, correctly saw the commie threat but also the international network of “secret societies” that had helped overturn Europe’s monarchical order since the French Revolution, (think Czar Alexander II or Elizabeth of Austria) including at least 2 attempts on the life of Alfonso XIII, who did not bow to their legislative agenda. One was made on the king’s wedding day, and killed/wounded around 130 people. Anyway, Franco wrote a book, Masonry, under the alias Jakin Boor, this is it, in English:

Yes, to understand Franco you have to understand his position on francmasons. By the way, Alfonso XIII, the last (to date) catholic monarch of Spain, had the temerity to publicly consecrate Spain to the Sacred Heart. That sealed his fate. Here's a pic:

http://www.fororeal.net/consagracion90aniv.htm

That fact, with the complete text, can be found at Fundacion Nacional Francisco Franco's website, just to show how Franco felt about it.

Franco, indeed a hero, correctly saw the commie threat but also the international network of "secret societies" that had helped overturn Europe's monarchical order since the French Revolution, (think Czar Alexander II or Elizabeth of Austria) including at least 2 attempts on the life of Alfonso XIII, who did not bow to their legislative agenda. One was made on the king's wedding day, and killed/wounded around 130 people. Anyway, Franco wrote a book, Masonry, under the alias Jakin Boor, this is it, in English:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-Masoneria-by-Jakim-Boor-/221938336408?
hash=item33ac8e4298

So he actually fought both the International Communist and the rather thick network of secret lodges in Spain. A nimble fellow.

Yes, to understand Franco you have to understand his position on francmasons. By the way, Alfonso XIII, the last (to date) catholic monarch of Spain, had the temerity to publicly consecrate Spain to the Sacred Heart. That sealed his fate. Here’s a pic:

Hey Fred, interesting take on things as usual. Ortega y Gassett was from Spain, though, never lived in Latin America to my knowledge.

Once I asked a younger colleague, he is of Mexican background, to recommend to me some Mexican fiction writer: his advice was to read Juan Rulfo, after that advice I read, in translation to English, “the 1955 novel Pedro Páramo”, absolute delirium.
I was mostly upset that quite qualified colleague did not point to anything better !
WHAT A PITY !

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter